Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF

THE VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD (Mr. MICHAEL STEWART) reported the Answer of the Counsellors of State to the Address, as followeth:

We Counsellors of State, to whom have been delegated certain royal functions as specified in Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the Realm dated January the 24th, 1947, have received your Address to His Majesty praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Australia) Order, be made in the form of the Draft laid before Parliament on 12th November, 1946.

On His Majesty's behalf we will comply with your request.

Henry.

Lascelles.

CIVIL CONTINGENCIES FUND, 1945–46

Account ordered:
of the Civil Contingencies Fund, 1945–46, showing (1) the Receipts and Payments In connection with the Fund in the year ended the 31st day of March, 1946, and (2) the Distribution of the Capital of the Fund at the commencement and close of the year; with Copy of the Correspondence with the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon."—[Mr. Glenvil Hall.]

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE

Chaplains (Release)

Squadron-Leader Sir Gifford Fox: asked the Secretary of State for Air why

there is a divergence in the rate of release for chaplains according to their religious denomination; how many Church of England, Roman Catholic, Methodist, Presbyterian and United Board chaplains are still in the Service; and when equality will be reached.

The Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker): Most of the chaplains now in the R.A.F. have voluntarily agreed to defer their release; but the proportion who have done so has varied in each denomination. The rate of release has, therefore, varied too. By June, however, the variations will only be of one group. With the hon. and gallant Member's permission, I will send him in writing the numbers of the chaplains in the Service.

Sir G. Fox: Will the Minister say which is the one group which is going to suffer? Why is it that these smaller denominations have suffered, whereas the Church of England and the Roman Catholics are being given preference?

Mr. Noel-Baker: The release groups in June for the Church of England and Roman Catholics will be 49, Methodists 50, Presbyterian 49, United Board 50, so that, so far as the hon. and gallant Member's supplementary goes, the Church of England and the Roman Catholics are behind.

Sir G. Fox: We are now hearing about June but when I put down the Question I was asking about the last list which was issued by the Air Force, about a fortnight or so ago.

Mr. Noel-Baker: In March the release groups that were reached were: Church of England 46, Roman Catholics 48, Methodists 49, Presbyterian 48. United Board 50, so that the same proposition remains true.

Medical Officers

Mr. Somerville Hastings: asked the Secretary of State for Air what peacetime conditions in the R.A.F. make necessary a 30 per cent. increase in the medical personnel over wartime strength.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Since the end of the war, the R.A.F. has taken over some hospital work from the Army; it now depends largely on short-term medical officers, who must start by sharing their work with an experienced man. The numbers on each


station have decreased, but medical officers are still required. Nevertheless, as I said in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for North Hendon (Mrs. Ayrton Gould) a week ago, I share the anxieties expressed by my hon. Friend, and I propose to consider the matter again in consultation with my right hon. Friends.

Mr. Hastings: Is my right hon. Friend convinced that the conditions which he has described warrant such a heavy increase as 30 per cent. over wartime strength?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I think they more than explain the increase. Whether we ought to have made a greater effort to reduce below the level which we have now reached, is exactly the question which I am going to reconsider with the other Service Ministers.

Mr. Gammans: Is it true that there is a 30 per cent, increase as compared with wartime—

Mr. Noel-Baker: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Gammans: —now that there are no casualties to be considered?

Mr. Noel-Baker: The rate was 2.29 per 1,000 in May, 1945, and it is now 3.03. The Army have gone down a little and the Navy have gone up a little. All are substantially above the agreed rate.

Mrs. Ayrton Gould: asked the Secretary of State for Air if he is aware that young medical officers, who are called up as soon as they are qualified, are posted to isolated camps, where they can get practically no clinical experience, and where there is little work of any kind for them to do; that often they remain in these posts for a year or more; and if he will see that, after the first six months, every medical conscript shall serve the rest of his time under conditions that will provide the necessary experience to enable him to fill a civilian post in his profession efficiently on his release.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: I understand that doctors have at least six months' work in hospital after they are qualified and before they are called up for the R.A.F. Many of them are then posted to stations, some of which, no doubt, are isolated; but I would remind my hon. Friend that it is on the stations that most of the medical work of the R.A.F. is done. All general hospitals in the R.A.F., however, organise

regular clinical meetings, to which medical officers of surrounding stations are invited. In this way, most of our doctors can improve their knowledge, if they feel that their ordinary work does not give them experience enough.

Mrs. Gould: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a number of these young medical officers have been posted to isolated stations for over a year, where they have not yet had half an hour's work a day to do, and in some cases have never had the opportunity of performing any sort of clinical work which could not have been done by a child of 10?

Mr. Noel-Baker: If my hon. Friend will give me particulars of special cases I will see if there is anything I can do.

Leave (Travel Warrants)

Mr. McGovern: asked the Secretary of State for Air if he is aware of the resentment felt by parents of new recruits who receive seven days' leave at Easter who will require to pay two-thirds of their railway fares to Glasgow and back; that one constituent of the hon. Member for Shettleston has two young boys serving and will require to pay £6 8s. for her sons' fares; and what steps he will take to mitigate this injustice.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: All airmen are entitled to regular periods of privilege leave, and when they take this leave they are given a warrant to travel free. During the present Easter period, the normal 48 hour week-end leave has been lengthened by several days, in order to relieve congestion on the trains. Since this is additional to normal privilege leave, no warrant to travel free is granted; but airmen can, in fact, make the double journey at single fare. Airmen can, of course, remain on their stations over Easter, if they so desire.

Mr. McGovern: Is the Minister aware that when young recruits go to a depot it is desirable that they should be able to take advantage of the first opportunity they have of getting over that feeling of home sickness, and that, therefore, they should be able to go on leave without having to ask their parents, who are often in poor circumstances, for the money? Will the Minister take steps to see that in the initial stages free warrants are granted?

Mr. Noel-Baker: It would be difficult for me to depart from the principle which I have explained. It would add heavily to the Exchequer charges for this purpose, and I do not think it could be justified in present circumstances.

Air-Commodore Harvey: In cases like this, would not the right hon. Gentleman consider tacking on the ordinary Easter leave to their quarterly leave, either bringing one forward or delaying the other for a week or two, so that warrants are available?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Yes, Sir, it the airmen desire that, it can be considered.

Farming Equipment, Ingham

Lieut.-Colonel Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: asked the Secretary of State for Air when the large amount of valuable farming equipment, such as manure drills, Fordson tractors, mole drainers, etc., now deteriorating and rusting in the open at Ingham, Suffolk, will be released for public auction.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Ingham is a collecting depot for surplus and unserviceable equipment from 62 stations of the R.A.F. Much of this equipment passes through the depot with very little delay. The covered storage is not adequate to hold it all, and what is available must, therefore, be used for the machinery and other goods which are of the greatest value and most liable to deteriorate. I am considering whether the storage space could be increased, or whether other improved arrangements could be made. I recently arranged that all farming equipment at Ingham and elsewhere, which is no longer needed by the R.A.F., shall be handed over to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture.

Lieut.-Colonel Clifton-Brown: Could the Minister speed up this action, as many of the farm implements have been there for a very long time and will become quite useless unless disposed of rapidly?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Agricultural implements often have to lie in the open, even on farms; but of course I will try to speed it up. Indeed, that is what I have done; that is the effect of the last part of my answer.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the R.A.F. are

not using many of these agricultural implements?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I would like notice of that.

Requisitioned House, Keston

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Secretary of State for Air the reasons for the delay in derequisitioning Towerfields, Keston, Kent, the release of which was promised in his letter of 31st October; and why, in view of that promise, he has now handed it over to another Government Department.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: In his letter of 31st October, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State informed the hon. Member that the R.A.F. would not require "Towerfields" in future, and that instructions had been given to the G.P.O. to remove the equipment which remained. I regret that this letter did not make it clear that the R.A.F. had no power to release "Towerfields" to Mr. Wright before, in accordance with the general practice, it had been offered for other Government use. The premises are now needed by the Ministry of Health, in order that the Bromley Corporation may rehouse homeless families.

Sir W. Smithers: Is the Minister aware that if ordinary citizens behaved in the way in which the Ministries have behaved in this matter they would find themselves in the dock? Is he also aware that an Englishman's home is no longer his castle?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I do not want to pronounce on the last proposition. I greatly regret that the letter was not more explicit on this point. I should have thought that probably the hon. Member himself might have known the general procedure, but I do not think it is to be expected that Mr. Wright should know, and I am sorry that we did not explain it.

Surplus Domestic Equipment

Mr. Tolley: asked the Secretary of State for Air if the large quantity of equipment at R.A.F. maintenance units, suitable for civilian use, will now be made available, in view of the shortage existing at the present time of those articles.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: The R.A.F. have made every effort to release without delay all surplus equipment which they do not


require. Special priority is given to goods that are suitable for domestic use. There have been special difficulties in recent months, but I am glad to assure my hon. Friend that satisfactory progress has been made.

Mr. Tolley: Will the Minister give an assurance that he will have a complete inventory made of all the R.A.F. equipment to which I have referred, because if so he will find that a large number of articles could still be used for the purpose of rebuilding the country at the present time?

Mr. Noel-Baker: My hon. Friend will realise that we must keep certain stocks for the future, and we do not want to go into the market with the civilian public. The making of the inventory for which he asks in itself involves a great deal of labour and delay in release. If we had not to make inventories we could release men much more quickly.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Can the Minister give any indication what progress he considers satisfactory?

Mr. Noel-Baker: In spite of the bad weather and lack of transport, which, for the last few months, greatly retarded matters, we have released very nearly three-quarters of what we shall be able to release, and I hope we shall finish it within this year.

Squadron-Leader Fleming: Is it not a fact that equipment inventories are kept up to date in all these stores?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Yes, they are kept up to date. That means that, as things are constantly coming in from stations, a good deal of our labour is used there.

Maintenance Units

Mr. Tolley: asked the Secretary of State for Air how many R.A.F. maintenance units are at present being maintained; and how many it is intended to close down in the immediate future.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: The R.A.F. now have 102 maintenance units of various types in the United Kingdom. Five of these units will be closed in the next three months, and 25 more by the end of the year. Ninety-one satellite depots will also be closed this year.

Mr. Tolley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he does not need that number

of R.A.F. maintenance units at the present time, when we are supposed to be in an era of peace; and, in view of the large number of people who could be released for productive industries at the present time, will he take steps to see that the matter is properly investigated?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Certainly; that is constantly under consideration. These maintenance units include many things, such as the depôts for the stores of which we have been speaking, and also keeping serviceable the aircraft in which our men have to fly.

Women, Burtonwood

Sir Robert Young: asked the Secretary of State for Air how many civilian women are employed by the R.A.F. at Burtonwood, Lancashire, as bat women; how many as cleaners; what are the conditions respecting each class of workers in relation to hours of work, wages per week and overtime for Sundays, and whether the expenses so incurred are included in the Air Estimates.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Fifteen civilian batwomen and four women cleaners are employed by the R.A.F. at Burtonwood. With my hon. Friend's permission, I will send him in writing the details of their hours and wages. Thanks to my hon. Friend's Question, it has been discovered that the women cleaners were not receiving an increase of twopence an hour, which was granted a year ago. Immediate steps have been taken to pay the arrears. The wages of civilian batwomen and cleaners are a charge against the Air Ministry Vote.

Sir R. Young: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that more productive work is found for some of these 15 batwomen?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I will inquire into that.

Sir G. Fox: Will the Minister say how many officers these 15 batwomen look after?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Yes, if the hon. and gallant Member will put down a Question.

Personal Case

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Secretary of State for Air why 147713 Corporal R. Houghton, due for release on 1st March, 1947, has not yet been demobilised.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Corporal Houghton was kept in Italy because he was needed as a witness at a court of inquiry. I am glad to tell my hon. Friend, however, that he left Italy for the United Kingdom two days ago and that he will shortly be released.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that it was necessary to delay the release of this corporal, who was one of 15 witnesses at a court of inquiry into an event which took place on 14th January last?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Yes, Sir. I have inquired into that, and I am satisfied it was necessary to keep them.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: On a point of Order. Is not this one of those questions which, in your opinion, Mr. Speaker, might have been better asked by means of a letter to the Minister, rather than by taking up time and wasting money?

Mr. Speaker: That is entirely for the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton).

West Freugh

Mr. McKie: asked the Secretary of State for Air if he will make a statement regarding future plans for the aerodrome at West Freugh, Wigtownshire.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: I hope that the airfield at West Freugh will be released for agriculture before the end of 1947.

Mr. McKie: Is the Minister aware that a good deal of consternation has been caused in the district lately at the idea that the aerodrome is to be closed?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I am advised that the units which are now there would be better moved elsewhere, and that the land is first-class agricultural land.

Families Abroad (Passages)

Sir G. Fox: asked the Secretary of State for Air why the fact that a passage will be found for the family of any man who has obtained suitable private accommodation abroad has not been circularised among personnel.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: An Air Ministry order of 3rd October, 1945, explained the conditions on which a passage will be found for the families of men who have satisfied the local R.A.F. authority that

they have found suitable accommodation. This order received wide publicity in the Service, but if the hon. and gallant Member knows of men who are unaware of its provisions, or who are in doubt about their meaning, I will do my best to clear their doubts away.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL AVIATION

Tudor III (Annual Cost)

Mr. William Shepherd: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation if he will state the estimated annual cost of the two Tudor III aircraft intended for Ministerial use; and the estimated cost involved in chartering special aircraft.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Mr. Lindgren): As stated in reply to the Question asked by the hon. Member on 27th February, the annual cost of an aircraft which has not yet been operated in service is largely conjectural and will depend on the extent of utilisation. So far as can be estimated at present, the annual cost of operating and maintaining these aircraft should be about £160,000, including depreciation of about £50,000 and allowances for insurance and interest on capital. It is estimated that the cost involved in chartering current types of four-engined aircraft on the same scale of foreseeable utilisation of the Tudor III's would be at least £190,000.

Mr. Shepherd: Will the hon. Gentleman take into account that future Ministers who may occupy that Front Bench may not be so anxious to leave the country as Ministers at the present time?

Mr. Erroll: Over how many years is depreciation spread?

Mr. Lindgren: On the basis of five years, I think. I would not be too sure. I will let the hon. Gentleman know later.

Internal Airlines (Acquisition Price)

Air-Commodore Harvey: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation what compensation has been paid for the taking over of railway air services and allied airways.

Mr. Lindgren: As my predecessor explained to the House during the passage of the Civil Aviation Bill, offers had been


made to the internal airlines of this country which were operating on 1st November, 1945, that they should each be acquired as going concerns at a price to be determined as between a willing buyer and a willing seller. Agreement on a price was subsequently reached with the group of companies comprised under the Associated Airways Joint Committee, and the transfer of the ownership of the undertakings to the British European Airways Corporation took place on 28th February, 1947. The agreed price was £550,000, subject to verification of the liquid assets by a chartered accountant. In the case of the other company, Allied Airways (Gandar Dower), Limited, negotiations with the company are proceeding.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Can the hon. Gentleman say when the negotiations regarding Allied Airways are likely to be completed?

Mr. Lindgren: Those negotiations are still proceeding. They have been protracted, but I should not like to give a date when it is contemplated that they will be completed.

Private Companies (Visas)

Group-Captain Wilcock: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation, what steps he proposes to take to ensure that the air crews of private companies are granted the same facilities as those of the public flying corporations with regard to visas for flying through foreign countries.

Mr. Lindgren: The question of assistance to private companies in this matter is being investigated, and I shall, if he agrees, communicate with my hon. and gallant Friend as soon as possible.

Group-Captain Wilcock: In view of the importance of this matter to the private operators, would the Parliamentary Secretary consider referring the matter to the International Conference in America or Canada in the near future?

Mr. Lindgren: My hon. and gallant Friend is, no doubt, aware that there has been some discussion by P.I.C.A.O. We admit that it was not too satisfactory, but my noble Friend will be only too pleased to arrange for this to be again discussed in an international conference.

Greek Services

Air-Commodore Harvey: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of

Civil Aviation, whether he has any statement to make on the formation of an Anglo-U.S.-Greek company to operate internal and external Greek air services.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation the names of the British, U.S. and Greek companies together forming the new company to operate Greek air lines.

Mr. Lindgren: Negotiations have been proceeding for some time between British European Airways Corporation, Trans-World Airlines, the National Bank of Greece and other Greek interests for the formation of a new Greek company to operate air services in and from Greece. It is proposed that the Greek interests shall have a majority holding, the minority holding being shared equally by British European Airways and Trans-World Airlines. Negotiations have reached an advanced stage, but the new company has not yet been formed.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Will the hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that everything will be done to see that the Americans do not take the whole of this market up by supplying their own aircraft, and that we get our fair share?

Mr. Lindgren: In actual fact, the company which this agreement will supersede have already on order British aircraft.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Good. Keep it up.

Corporation Accounts and Salaries

Air-Commodore Harvey: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation when it is proposed to lay before Parliament the accounts of the three air corporations.

Mr. Lindgren: My noble Friend is anxious that the accounts of the three Corporations should be laid before Parliament at the earliest practicable date. His wishes have been conveyed to the Corporations, and discussions are taking place as to how best to achieve this object.

Air-Commodore Harvey: In view of the delay in presenting these accounts and the apprehensions concerning them, will the Minister do everything possible to see that they are presented at the very earliest opportunity?

Mr. Lindgren: Yes, Sir. That is my noble Friend's desire. But I think I ought to say, on behalf of B.O.A.C., that its ramifications are world-wide, that its accountancy and audits have to be undertaken in various parts of the world, and that the collation of these accounts is a difficult task. The last took 11 months, but my noble Friend will not be satisfied until that period is very materially reduced.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman explain to those concerned that these accounts should be as fully informative as those of the London Passenger Transport Board, and not as uninformative as those of the B.B.C.?

Mr. Lindgren: They are required under the Act to conform to the best commercial standards. My noble Friend has already had discussions with the Corporations. I can assure the House that, as a consequence of those discussions, the proposed form of the accounts will be very informative indeed, as compared with normal commercial standards.

Major Haughton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that what seems to us a perfectly reasonable request, to have these accounts put before us, is sidetracked every time that we ask it? The accounts may be difficult, but they are no more difficult than those in commercial concerns, and in connection with these and other matters, when we have asked for accounts they have not been informative.

Mr. Lindgren: With great respect, I think that that is not according to the facts. If the hon. and gallant Member will look at the accounts which were placed before the House on 20th March in respect of 1945-46, I think he will agree that they are in a very good form and quite informative.

Mr. Beswick: Does the cost of new aircraft appear?

Mr. Lindgren: The effect of the cost will. As to the actual details of cost, I am not sure.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: In view of the fact that the hon. Gentleman has already informed the House that deficiency payments to date amount to over £15 million, will he not agree that something more detailed in the way of accounts should be presented to the House, in view of what

must be world-wide losses, so far as I can see?

Mr. Lindgren: A supplementary question couched in that form gives an entirely wrong impression. The deficiency referred to is over a period of years, from 1940 to 1945; and, in fact, has been shown in the accounts given each year. Each one of those accounts has been laid before the House, and it was open to the House to discuss them at that time.

Mr. Mikardo: In view of the fact that next year the accounts will cover the transitional period in which there has been heavy expenditure, would the hon. Gentleman ask the Corporations to ensure, particularly, separation out in the expenditure accounts of now recurrent special costs from regularly recurrent costs?

Mr. Lindgren: That will be the desire. I think that I ought to point to that certain costs, and the deficiency which has been referred to already, would have been greater had the Corporation borne all the costs that they ought to have borne. There were many costs carried on Air Ministry Votes and Departmental Votes that were clearly appropriate to the operation of air lines.

Mr. Ernest Davies: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation if he will state the fees payable to each of the chairmen and members of the Boards of B.O.A.C., B.E.A.C. and B.S.A.A.C., who were serving thereon at 28th January, 1947.

Mr. Lindgren: As at 28th January, 1947, the annual salaries of the chairmen of the three Corporations were £7,500 (British Overseas Airways Corporation), £6,500 (British European Airways Corporation), and £6,000 (British South American Airways Corporation). Each of the three deputy chairmen was in receipt of an annual salary of £1,500 for part-time services. Other members, except those who were full-time salaried employees of the Corporations, received annual salaries varying between £1,000 and £1,500 according to their duties. Those member who were full-time employees of the Corporations received no additional remuneration in respect of their offices as members.

Mr. Davies: Do these gentlemen who serve on these boards receive any expenses in addition to their fees?

Mr. Lindgren: Yes, Sir. In the B.O.A. C.,£2,000 per annum; in the B.E.A.C., £1,000; and in the B.S.A.A.C., £500.

Mr. Davies: Does that refer only to full-time or full-time and part-time men?

Mr. Lindgren: No, Sir. These expense allowances are for the chairmen of the corporations.

Mr. Erroll: Are these expenses the maximum allowed, or do they get a bit more when they go abroad?

Mr. Lindgren: They are the maximum.

Mr. Mikardo: Does the hon. Gentleman admit that the chairman of the B.O.A.C. is worth nine and a half Members of Parliament, or one and nine-tenths Cabinet Ministers?

Commander Noble: Are these expenses free of tax?

Mr. Lindgren: That, I think, is a question that ought to be addressed to the Treasury. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Quite frankly, I do not know. I will ascertain the fact and let the hon. and gallant Gentleman know.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: May I ask what proportion of these highly salaried persons are representative of Scottish interests?

Mr. Lindgren: It appears to me from my service in London as a good Cockney, that we are invaded from Scotland for all the good jobs in considerable numbers.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: May I have an answer to my question?

Mr. Lindgren: The answer is, that I do not know whether any of the gentlemen concerned are of Scottish descent.

Executive Posts (Corporation Members)

Mr. Ernest Davies: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation if he will state the names of those members of the Boards of B.O.A.C., B.E.A.C. and B.S.A.A.C. who had contracts with the Boards in respect of executive positions held, the length of such contracts and the amounts payable thereunder in each instance.

Mr. Lindgren: Apart from the chairmen, the following members of the three

Corporations are employed on a full-time basis otherwise than as members:

British Overseas Airways Corporation—
Major J. R. McCrindle, O.B.E., M.C.
British European Airways Corporation—
Mr. Gerard d'Erlanger, C.B.E., A.C.A.
British South American Airways Corporation—Air Vice-Marshal D. C. T. Bennett, C.B., C.B.E., D.S.O.
My noble Friend has no statutory responsibility for the contracts and remuneration attaching to executive posts held by members of the Corporations, but in such cases he has determined, with the consent of the Treasury, that there should be no remuneration in respect of the office of member of the board.

Mr. Davies: Does my hon. Friend mean to say that he cannot give information of the salaries which these members of the boards are receiving as executives of the Corporations?

Mr. Lindgren: That is so, Sir. It is purely a matter of management, and my noble Friend has no authority, statutory or otherwise, in regard to general matters of management. The payment of salaries to executives is entirely a matter of management.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does the Parliamentary Secretary mean that his noble Friend does not know, or that his noble Friend does know but will not say?

Mr. Lindgren: I mean what I say. My noble Friend does not know.

New Appointments (Airways Corporations)

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation, whether he has any statement to make on the resignation of the chairman of B.O.A.C.

Mr. Edward Davies: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation whether it is intended to appoint a new chairman of B.O.A.C.; and when he expects to be in a position to make an announcement.

Mr. Erroll: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation whether in view of the fact that the chairman of B.O.A.C. resigned within a few days of the announcement of the corporation's trading losses for 1945–46, he will make a statement giving the reasons for the resignation.

Mr. Lindgren: As already announced in the Press, Viscount Knollys intimated informally some months ago his inability to continue as chairman of British Overseas Airways Corporation beyond 30th June next, the expiry date of his term of four years for which he was released from his City business. My noble Friend has regretfully accepted his decision.
In view of suggestions that have gained a certain currency in the Press and elsewhere, I desire, with the concurrence of Lord Knollys, to make it clear that the reason for his ceasing to be chairman is neither more nor less than that I have stated, and I may add that the relations of Lord Knollys with my noble Friend and myself, both personally and officially, have throughout been and are of the best. I wish to take this opportunity of testifying to the devoted service given by Lord Knollys to British Overseas Airways Corporation and to civil aviation in general during his period of office, which has coincided with the critical phase of transition through war to peace.
Following upon the vacancy thus created in the chairmanship of British Overseas Airways Corporation, my noble Friend has made the following appointments:

To be chairman of British Overseas Airways Corporation: Sir Harold Hartley, K.C.V.O., F.R.S., at present chairman of British European Airways Corporation.
To be chairman of British European Airways Corporation: Mr. Gerard d'Erlanger, at present chief executive of that Corporation.
The board of British Overseas Airways Corporation have appointed Mr. Whitney Straight to be managing director (chief executive). They have also appointed Major J. R. McCrindle, at present deputy director-general of British Overseas Airways Corporation to be managing director (external affairs).
The board of British European Airways Corporation have appointed Mr. J. V. Wood, who has a long experience, both operational and administrative, in civil aviation, and is at present with British Overseas Airways Corporation, to be managing director of British European Airways Corporation.
The above appointments will take effect on the 1st July next, when it is my noble

Friend's intention to appoint Mr. Whitney Straight to be a director of British Overseas Airways Corporation and Mr. Wood to be a director of British European Airways Corporation.
The appointment of Mr. Whitney Straight to British Overseas Airways Corporation will create a vacancy in the deputy chairmanship of British European Airways Corporation, and my noble Friend hopes shortly to be able to announce an appointment to that position.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: While congratulating the Government on going to the much criticised Railway Executive for the new Chairman of B.O.A.C., and to private industry for both the other appointments, may I ask the hon. Gentleman to tell Lord Knollys that, while our views remain as they were in regard to these monopoly Corporations, we, on this side of the House, are most grateful to him for the courtesy and efficiency which, for so long, he has personally shown?

Mr. Lindgren: As a product of the railway industry myself, I will be happy to convey that message to Lord Knollys.

Mr. Walter Fletcher: Can the Minister tell us Sir Harold Hartley's age?

Mr. Lindgren: I could not say exactly, but I think somewhere about 65 or 68.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the appointments of these younger directors which he has announced will give great satisfaction to the civil aviation industry?

Bovingdon Airport

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation if he will state the number of people employed by B.O.A.C. at Bovingdon airport in December last and today; the number of aircraft handled; and the number of passengers carried in these aircraft.

Mr. Lindgren: No, Sir. This question relates to a matter within the sphere of management which is left by the statute to the Corporation.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: While I am glad that something is being left to the Corporation, may I ask if figures like this will appear in the statements rendered to Parliament shortly by the Corporations?

Mr. Lindgren: I doubt whether detailed figures of employment at the various airports will be included in the statements, but I will take note of the point, and, in so far as the larger centres of employment are concerned, I will see whether it can be done.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY

Control Commission Staff

Mr. W. Shepherd: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster the number of persons employed in the Control Commission, British element, in May, 1946, and at January, 1947.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Hynd): The figures were 22,265 on 1st May, 1946, and 26,280 on 1st January, 1947.

Mr. Shepherd: Can the Minister explain to the House why, whenever there is a reduction in staff promised, it is followed by an increase? Can he say what is the principle on which he is working?

Mr. Hynd: I think that it has been explained sufficiently on numerous occasions, that the establishment was originally cut from 42,000 last year to 26,000, and it has again been cut to 20,000. We have never, until recently, reached the 26,000 figure, but, as I have explained, there have been additional duties attached to the Control Commission for other Departments and these have increased the staff. In fact, the figure of 26,280 includes 2,300 additional people engaged on extraneous work to that of the Commission, and 2,000 military personnel who will be replaced by civilians.

Mr. Shepherd: Is it a fact that the staff has been reduced to 20,000?

Mr. Hynd: The staff has now been reduced to 21,879.

Timber Exports to U.K.

Mr. W. Shepherd: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster the total amount of timber obtained from Germany since the start of the operations; and the number of British personnel now engaged in this work in Germany.

Mr. J. Hynd: Up to the end of January, 386,500 metric tons had been imported into this country from Germany. There were then 481 British staff engaged on this work.

Mr. Shepherd: Can the Minister say what yearly output from this source is anticipated?

Mr. Hynd: I think the approximate target at the moment is round about a million tons per annum, but it depends entirely on the manpower and transport available and other factors of that kind. The House will be interested to know that, as compared with the first quarter of last year, when there was exported 11,200 tons, the figure in the last quarter was 164,743 tons.

Mr. Spence: Could the Minister divide up that figure in order to indicate timber suitable for building and timber which is suitable for electricity poles?

Mr. Hynd: I could divide it up into sawn soft wood, logs and other kinds, and, if the hon. Member desires, I will send him the figures.

Mr. Vane: Can the Minister say how many of the 481 British personnel who are members of the Forestry Commission staff are still seconded to his Department, and who fixes the price of the timber on its arrival in this country?

Mr. Hynd: The greater proportion, if not all of the staff, are recruited from the Home Grown Timber Control and they are part of the North German Timber Control. The price fixed in this country is a matter for the Board of Trade.

Blind Persons

Mr. Douglas Marshall: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the pension allowed by the German Government for blind persons; what was the pension allowed for blind persons in August, 1945; and what is the present figure.

Mr. J. Hynd: There was no standard pension for blind persons in Germany before the war and there is none now. Maintenance of blind persons is covered by social industrial or other general arrangements appropriate to the circumstances and cause of their disability.

Control Commission Cars

Mr. D. Marshall: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many motorcars are in need of repair in Germany; and how many motorcars have been exported to Germany for the Control Commission.

Mr. J. Hynd: On 10th March, about 3,460 British Element Control Commission cars were under repair. 528 cars have been exported to Germany for their use.

Requisitioning

Mr. D. Marshall: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster by whom have the 26,600 houses derequisitioned in the British zone of Germany been released; and what additional requisitioning has been done by the two Belgian corps which have replaced 30 Corps.

Mr. J. Hynd: All the properties were released by British Army of the Rhine. In the second half of the Question I presume the hon. Member is referring to the one Belgian corps which replaced certain British Divisions. During 1946, 1,763 houses and flats were requisitioned for them.

Coal Exports

Mr. Bramall: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what change was made in the proportion of coal exported from the British zone between January and February, 1947; and whether either the German Bizonal Economic Committee or the Bipartite Economic Control Group were consulted before the change was made.

Mr. J. Hynd: There was no change in the quantities allocated for export but transport difficulties, caused by the severe weather, reduced actual loadings from 451,000 metric tons in January to 297,000 metric tons in February.

Electric Motor Components

Mr. Erroll: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what raw materials and semi-manufactured components for the manufacture of electric motors have been imported into Germany during the last 12 months; how much has come from England; and how much has had to be paid for in U.S. dollars.

Mr. J. Hynd: None, Sir.

Mr. Erroll: Can the Minister say whether any imports will be permitted or not?

Mr. Hynd: I do not know whether I can say that any imports will be permitted. The test which has to be considered by the bizonal authorities is whether any imports are really essential to the purposes of the occupation.

Venereal Disease

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in view of the fact that less than 10 per cent. of the 6,879 women in Greater Berlin who were compulsorily examined were found to be suffering from venereal disease, why the same compulsory powers are not exercised respecting the German and other male population, in view of their equal liability to spread this disease.

Mr. J. Hynd: Under the German regulations German males as well as females are already subject to compulsory examination.

Mr. Sorensen: In view of the fact that, apparently, the incidence of this disease is so drastic and so sinister that ten times as many women have to be compulsorily examined as have actually been subject to the disease, why is it that the same regulations should not apply to other than the Germans?

Mr. Hynd: The regulations in question are laid down by the German Berlin authorities, and therefore apply to Germans, and to those displaced persons and others who come within the German law. The Allied personnel in Berlin and other parts of the country are covered by the regulations under which they operate.

Mr. Sorensen: Is it not true that the original prewar regulations have been extended under the Occupying Power, and is there any reason at all why, if these regulations are necessary, similar regulations do not apply to British personnel?

Mr. Hynd: I would not like to say that we would necessarily be prepared to adopt the same conditions as have been considered necessary by the German authorities. The conditions as compared with prewar are somewhat different in Berlin. The German authorities have taken such steps as they consider necessary, and of course there are special regulations applying to our own Armed Forces and to others.

Mr. Sorensen: But cannot British personnel infect and be infected as much as Germans?

Mr. Hynd: Yes, but they come under the regulations applying to them, as in the case of the Army.

Oral Answers to Questions — AUSTRIA (VISITORS)

Mr. Keeling: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how soon business men and tourists will be allowed to visit Austria.

Mr. J. Hynd: Business men have for a considerable time been travelling to Austria at the rate of 20 to 30 a month. More are accommodated on special occasions. At the present time nearly a 100 have gone to the Vienna Fair. In regard to tourists, a scheme for the British, French and U.S. zones has been agreed and a few tourists have actually gone to resorts in the French zone of Austria for winter sports.

Mr. Keeling: Is it intended to extend the facilities for tourists, as without a large number of tourists Austria cannot possibly hope to balance her imports?

Mr. Hynd: Of course, the facilities in Austria at the present time are very severely limited. The Austrian Government themselves are in control of the number of tourists that can be accommodated, and I have no doubt that, in the interests of their foreign exchange position, they will increase those facilities to the maximum.

Mr. Walkden: Can the Minister tell us how many of those tourists, who have gone to Vienna for winter sports, are coal miners and agricultural workers from Great Britain?

Oral Answers to Questions — TREE FELLING LICENCES

Mr. Keeling: asked the Prime Minister whether in order that the felling of timber may be controlled with due regard to replanting and proper forestry practice, he will consider the transfer of the issue of felling licences from the Board of Trade to the Forestry Commission.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): No, Sir. I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane) on 18th February last.

Mr. Keeling: As the Ministry of Food does not control the harvesting of crops, why should the Board of Trade control the felling of timber?

The Prime Minister: I think that is explained in the answer to the previous Question, if the hon. Gentleman will look at it.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMED FORCES

Service Assets, India

Mr. N. Macpherson: asked the Minister of Defence what is the value at cost, including final cost under lend-lease settlements, of R.N., Army and R.A.F. stocks, buildings and fixtures in India for the handing over of which negotiations are, at present, proceeding between His Majesty's Government and the interim Government of India.

The Minister of Defence (Mr. A. V. Alexander): The stores and other assets are dispersed throughout India, and the quantities to be handed over have not yet been determined. It is not, therefore, possible to estimate the amount which will be brought into any future negotiations on this matter with the Government of India.

Mr. Macpherson: Would the Minister of Defence, in settling the amount that is to be paid by the Indian Government for these stores and fixed assets, treat all this as a part of the general settlement of the debt to India?

Mr. Alexander: I think that question should be put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Naval Air Arm

Group-Captain Wilcock: asked the Minister of Defence whether, in the interest of economy, both of manpower and money, he will arrange for the R.A.F. to assume responsibility for the flying training of Naval Air Arm personnel and the maintenance of naval aircraft when ashore, and the shore naval bases now controlled by the Naval Air Arm to be transferred to the R.A.F.

Mr. Alexander: There is no evidence before me that it would make either for economy or for efficiency for the R.A.F. to assume responsibility for those functions now carried out by the Royal Navy for the Naval Air Arm.

Group-Captain Wilcock: Is the Minister aware that there is duplication in the shore establishments, which must result in a wastage of manpower? Would he undertake to consider this in the light of evidence that I will bring to his notice?

Mr. Alexander: I shall be glad to receive evidence. As my hon. and gallant Friend knows, basic pilot training is being done for the Navy by the Air Force


already, and the subsequent training is carried out especially for naval purposes. I shall be glad to see any evidence he has.

Deserters (Surrender)

Mr. Chetwynd: asked the Minister of Defence how many of the estimated total of 20,000 deserters at large in the United Kingdom on 22nd January, 1947, have surrendered voluntarily between that date and 31st March, 1947; how many have been sentenced; and what steps will be taken to deal with deserters still at large.

Mr. Austin: asked the Minister of Defence if he is now in a position to make a full statement on the response to his recent appeal to deserters, together with a survey of the factors that contributed to its failure.

Mr. Alexander: The final returns have not yet come in and may be appreciably increased by eleventh hour surrenders. The latest firm figures available show that since 22nd January the number of deserters who have surrendered voluntarily in the United Kingdom is:


Army
…
1,158


Royal Navy
…
227


Royal Air Force
…
230


During that period 549 deserting soldiers, 112 sailors and 25 airmen have been apprehended in the United Kingdom. In addition, a number of men have given themselves up or have been apprehended abroad during the period. Precise figures of these are not yet available. Of the men who surrendered voluntarily in the United Kingdom 720 soldiers, 203 sailors and 45 airmen have already been sentenced. The instructions for dealing especially quickly and leniently with deserters who surrendered voluntarily before the end of March have been withdrawn and any deserters who now surrender will be dealt with on their merits.

Mr. Chetwynd: In view of the somewhat disappointing result of this appeal, does my right hon. Friend now intend to pursue more vigorous methods of rounding up deserters, or would he consider extending the period of clemency for another month or two months?

Mr. Alexander: To the last part of the supplementary question I think the answer must be, "No, Sir." In regard to the first part, I would rather wait,

before talking about failure, until we get the final figures. I have four or five days' returns to come in before they are complete. At any rate, I am satisfied that it has been worth while to get somewhere near 1,600 to 1,700 men voluntarily to decide for themselves to make good for the future.

Mr. Austin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Government's policy on the question of deserters is both harsh and inconclusive, and is likely to lead to a trail, over the years, of many broken lives? Will he take into consideration the feelings of the families of the men concerned and reconsider his decision?

Mr. Alexander: I have tried to explain before that that may be the view of some of the families concerned, but it is by no means the view of (a) families who have lost men in the war, (b) many of the men who have been compelled to serve longer because other men deserted their duties, and (c) of many other families who have had sons who served faithfully and well right through, and therefore do not wish special treatment to be given to deserters.

Mr. Carmichael: Will the Minister give some indication of the percentage of deserters who have returned voluntarily to the Forces?

Mr. Alexander: It is rather difficult to assess the percentage of actual deserters. There were about 20,000 men absent, but I cannot say that every one was a deliberate deserter. Some may have been missing for various other reasons. I cannot give the exact figure, but, taking 20,000, it means that we have recovered voluntarily about 7½ to 8 per cent., but that figure may be increased slightly when I get the final returns.

Mr. Lipson: Will the Minister investigate with the Ministry of Food the fact that it is apparently quite easy for a person to go to a food office, change his name, and be registered under an assumed name, and to what extent that practice has made it difficult to trace these deserters?

Mr. Alexander: I have put the point to my right hon. Friend, and no doubt other Members will do so.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: While giving due weight to the considerations my right


hon. Friend has mentioned, may I ask if it is not reasonably clear now that the number of people who have actually deserted is very small? Will he not consider this, in view of the fact that it is now two years since the end of the war, and reconsider whether a complete amnesty of all these offences might not now be granted?

Mr. Alexander: I would like to make it clear, and I am sure all my hon. Friends will realise that it is fundamental, that we must maintain the discipline of organised manpower. It is not only the deserters but those who have served in the Forces who deserve consideration; there cannot be a repetition of amnesty. The Government made a fairly generous offer, many men have got off much more leniently in consequence, and they have had a long period in which to surrender. I think we have done our best, and we must leave it there.

Major Guy Lloyd: Is there to be any period of leniency granted to those who deserted the Government last night?

Mr. Austin: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES

East Africa Groundnut Scheme

Mr. Erroll: asked the Minister of Food what accommodation is being provided for native workers and their families who are to be employed in connection with the East Africa Groundnut Scheme; and if he will give an assurance that no materials are exported from England for this purpose which are required for the domestic housing programme, or for electricity generating station buildings.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Edith Summer-skill): For the time being tents are being used, but eventually the African workers and their families will occupy cottages built mainly of local materials. If any question of competition arose, priority would certainly be given to electricity plant and housing in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Erroll: Does the hon. Lady realise that the kind of building materials which have already left this country for East Africa are needed at home?

Dr. Summerskill: If the hon. Member will specify the materials, I will be pleased to look into it.

Catering Licences, Scotland

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Minister of Food how many catering licences were issued during the last 18 months to persons in Scotland and, in particular, in Aberdeen; and how many of these were issued to persons recently naturalised and to ordinary British citizens of long standing, respectively.

Dr. Summerskill: Between 16th August, 1945, and 15th January, 1947, 2,648 catering licences were issued in Scotland. Fifty-one of these were issued in the city of Aberdeen. No information is readily available of the number of licences granted to people recently naturalised, but of the 51 licences issued in the city of Aberdeen, two were granted to aliens who had given up existing businesses during the war.

Mr. Hughes: Can the Minister tell us on what principle these licences are granted?

Dr. Summerskill: If the hon. and learned Member is talking about aliens, these licences were granted to these two men because one was an ex-trader; he had been in this country since 1911, and neither the Home Office nor the Minister of Labour objected. The other case was a man who had been on war service.

Farmworkers

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Food if, in order to avoid repeated form-filling and ensure that all farmworkers get their due of the special allowances of rationed foods this summer, he will issue direct to them the necessary permits valid until the end of October.

Dr. Summerskill: My right hon. Friend regrets that he cannot allow workers themselves to draw the extra allowances, as they are not a differential ration for the individual, but a substitute for meals in a canteen. He is, however, making fresh arrangements to facilitate the distribution of the special allowances of food.

Mr. Hurd: Is the Minister aware that the present arrangements are wholly unsatisfactory, and that throughout this summer many farmworkers will be putting in 60 hours a week? Will the Minister look at this again?

Dr. Summerskill: I think what has been wrong is that some of the farmers have failed to co-operate.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: Have the farmers not enough form filling to do already? Does the hon. Lady realise that it is the individual farmworker whom we want to benefit, and not the farmer?

Dr. Summerskill: No, I am not aware of that. The farmer has only to fill in one form which covers the period and the number of workers employed.

Mr. Hudson: He has then to go and divide the food according to his individual workers.

Mr. Gooch: Is my hon. Friend aware that the schemes break down because so many farmers do not make the application in respect of their men? Will she consider the extreme desirability of making the rations available to the men?

Dr. Summerskill: The answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question is, "Yes, Sir," and to the second part, I am sure my hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that the T.U.C. Advisory Council met my right hon. Friend on this point today.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: May I ask what it has to do with the T.U.C.?

Dr. Summerskill: It has a great deal to do with the T.U.C., because the men are doing the work.

Milk Bottles

Mr. Spence: asked the Minister of Food whether he is satisfied that existing reserve stocks and current production of milk bottles will ensure adequate distribution of milk during 1947.

Dr. Summerskill: I should not like to give any assurance about the adequacy of production and stocks of bottles during the summer when milk supplies are heavier. It will be necessary for everyone to exercise the greatest care in using bottles. I am, however, in close touch with my right hon. and learned Friend the President of the Board of Trade with a view to maintaining the highest rate of production possible under the prevailing fuel difficulties.

Mr. Spence: Will the hon. Lady reconsider the answer she gave me a fortnight ago, about introducing some form of

charge, which will ensure the return of the bottles, having regard to the need for bottles?

Dr. Summerskill: The hon. Member is evidently not aware of the fact that the retailer is covered by one margin for the return of bottles, and if we allowed a charge to be made, he would be enjoying two margins.

Mr. Walkden: Is my hon. Friend aware that the railway companies have now introduced waxen paper cups to replace the cracked cups which we had during the war? What are the Milk Marketing Board or the Ministry doing to popularize waxen cartons, which were a good thing before the war? Why cannot we have them now?

Dr. Summerskill: The question of the use of cartons has not escaped our notice and I can assure my hon. Friend that we have examined the question. At the moment the price is prohibitive.

Mr. Baldwin: Is the hon. Lady aware that there will be no satisfactory solution to the shortage of bottles until a charge is made for them? If she goes into the country she will find bottles littered about the fields, after casual labour from the towns has been employed.

Reception (Cost)

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Minister of Food the cost to the taxpayer of the reception held at the Dorchester hotel on 26th March for the Third Conference of the European Infestation Control Working Party; and if he will give details of its purpose, activities and benefit to Britain.

Dr. Summerskill: The cost of this reception was £55 2s. 2d. The European Infestation Control Working Party has been set up under the aegis of the Emergency Economic Committee for Europe and it comprises representative Government scientists from a number of European countries. Its chief aim is to secure a reduction of infestation losses in stored foodstuffs by the co-operative efforts f the countries concerned. I need not emphasise the importance to this country of achieving this aim.

Sir W. Smithers: May I ask the hon. Lady if these working parties will inquire into the infestation in Britain of the Minister of Food, and take steps to disinfect him?

Dr. Summerskill: May I say I deplore the fact that the grace of hospitality has been destroyed by this Question, which has been put down whilst our guests are still in this country.

Mr. Churchill: I hope I shall not be trespassing on the grace of hospitality if I ask what is the point of the word "infestation". Why was it chosen, and what does it actually mean? It seems a little to detract from the glamour of the title.

Dr. Summerskill: As the right hon. Gentleman is a master of the English language, I think he should be able to explain that to the House.

Mr. Churchill: Surely, without attempting mastery in the English language, some trace of reason should be attached to the use of these particular words by His Majesty's Government? Would the hon. Lady kindly say what is the point of this word "infestation"? What does it mean?

Dr. Summerskill: Infestation simply means the destruction of food by some kind of vermin.

Mr. Churchill: Are we to understand that the object is to prevent the destruction of food by vermin, because, if so, I do not think there would be any difference between us that international measures should be taken for that purpose?

Dr. Summerskill: That is precisely the reason why this body has been set up.

Mr. Walkden: Does it not mean, so far as the Ministry of Food is concerned, bugs and fleas and things that creep and crawl and cause trouble for the Ministry of Food?

Sir W. Smithers: Is not the description which has just been given an apt description of His Majesty's Government?

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMY OFFICER (LETTER TO MEMBER)

Mr. Driberg: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that his action in instituting disciplinary proceedings against an officer, whose name has been communicated to him, solely on the basis of a letter from this officer forwarded by the hon. Member

for Maldon is a breach of the customary privilege attaching to communications between M.Ps. and their constituents, and to representations, made by hon. Members on their constituents behalf, and if he will forthwith cancel any proceedings which may have been instituted against this officer.

The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. John Freeman): There has been some misunderstanding about this case, and I am sorry if my right hon. Friend's letter was not completely clear. The facts are as follow: My hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) sent on a letter from an officer constituent to my right hon. Friend which contained a number of serious and scurrilous allegations against certain senior officers. All these allegations except one have been carefully investigated, and are undoubtedly without foundation. My hon. Friend has been informed of this in the letter in question. There remains one final allegation of a libellous character which cannot from its very nature be investigated without serious consequential effects on discipline. My right hon. Friend is not prepared to investigate this matter unless it is on the understanding that the officer making the allegation shall be punished in the event of the allegation proving to be unfounded. No disciplinary action has yet been taken, and none will be taken, unless the allegation is without foundation. The matter will not be investigated at all except on those terms. The right of the Serviceman to write to his M.P. is thus not in any way impaired, and indeed has not been challenged by my Department.

Mr. Driberg: Is my hon. Friend aware that that right, which has been restated by successive Governments in this House, surely loses much of its value unless it includes an implied guarantee of absolute immunity for the Serviceman concerned?

Mr. Freeman: I do not think that the House would feel that there can be absolute immunity in a matter of this kind. If an allegation is made, the officer or soldier who makes the allegation must abide by the natural consequences of investigation. We are endeavouring to maintain this right of the Serviceman with the greatest possible discretion, but it does require a certain amount of give and take on both sides.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Eden: Can the acting Leader of the House tell us the Business for the week after Easter?

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Arthur Greenwood): Yes, Sir. The Business for the first week after the Easter Recess will be as follows:
Tuesday, 15th April.—My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will open his Budget.
Wednesday, 16th April, and Thursday, 17th April.—General Debate on the Budget Resolutions.
Friday, 18th April.—Report and Third Reading of the Cotton (Centralised Buying) Bill.
In order to meet the general wishes of the House we arranged for a fuel Debate to take place before Easter, that is, today, and postponed consideration of the Cotton (Centralised Buying) Bill. Following this rearrangement of Business, I think it will be generally understood that we shall obtain the concluding stages of the Cotton (Centralised Buying) Bill in the normal time available on Friday, 18th April.

Major Legge-Bourke: With reference to the Business for the week after Easter, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will bear in mind that a statement is to be made by the Government tomorrow on the floods, and that there are many hon. Members on both sides of the House who have views which they would like to express on the matter? Can the Leader of the House give some assurance that at the earliest date possible there will be a Debate on the floods? May I suggest that the Motion standing in my name, and in the names of 160 other hon. Members of the House, would be a suitable Motion on which to have such a Debate?
[That this House cannot but recognise the recent widespread flooding especially in the Fens as a national disaster and urges His Majesty's Government to treat it as such.]

Mr. Greenwood: I think the hon. and gallant Member had better await the statement which is to he made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture tomorrow morning. Thereafter, if an opportunity arises, as it may well do on the Estimates, no doubt a Debate may be arranged.

Major Legge-Bourke: Does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that when a statement is made, it is extremely difficult to have anything in the nature of a Debate upon it? Only a very few questions can be asked. Will he bear that in mind?

Mr. David Eccles: Could the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the Budget White Paper is to be published this year, a few days before the introduction of the Budget, as I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer promised last year? It would be of great assistance to Members.

Mr. Greenwood: I will certainly consult my right hon. Friend on that point. I am quite certain that there is no desire to mislead the House on the facts of the situation.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the Government proposals about procedure, arising out of the last Report of the Select Committee, are to be made to the House in time to affect the Budget procedure this year?

Mr. Greenwood: No. I made a statement to the House, I think a fortnight ago, in which I said that we had settled our procedure for this Session, and that nothing in the Report of the Select Committee could affect this Session's procedure.

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE

House to meet Tomorrow at Eleven o'Clock; no Questions to be taken after Twelve o'Clock; and at Five o'Clock Mr. Speaker to adjourn the House without Question put.—[The Prime Minister.]

ADJOURNMENT (EASTER)

House, at its rising Tomorrow, to adjourn till Tuesday, 15th April.—[The Prime Minister.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]

FUEL SITUATION

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. William Whiteley.]

3.39 p.m.

Mr. Eden: The main purpose of the Debate upon which we are now to engage, is to obtain from the Government a clear picture of fuel prospects for the weeks and months ahead, and, in particular, further information as to the provision of fuel for industry, and the restriction of fuel for the domestic consumer. I think I can best begin by outlining the picture as it presents itself to us today, on the basis of the information which the Government have recently given. In the first place, we are told by the Government that the coal target for 1947 is 200 million tons. This, in itself, as a target is woefully inadequate, as representatives of both the Federation of British Industries and the T.U.C. have already pointed out. Moreover, it represents, as far as deep-mined coal is concerned, a production of some 15 million tons less than we achieved in 1941 by a labour force no greater and with less mechanisation than we have today. I know that all sections of the House will feel that this is a very disappointing figure. So much, for the moment, about the target for 1947 as a whole. Its implications will be clearer as this Debate goes on.
Let us examine the outlook for the next few weeks and months. As I understand

the statements made to us by a number of Ministers, the intention, as far as hard fuel is concerned, has been to restart supplies at a figure of 33⅓ per cent. of the original allocation. They also propose to build up, if possible, from this level of 33⅓ per cent. to the 50 per cent. level proposed in the so-called Cripps plan. They hope to do that by the beginning of the coal summer, 1st May. We have also been given some calculations by the President of the Board of Trade and the Prime Minister, to cover the six summer months.
The upshot of these various Government statements appears to be this: Our total requirements—I am dealing at the moment with the summer months, including the full requirements of industry but of course not allowing anything of importance for export—will be about 100 million tons, after making allowances for a saving of two million tons as a result of conversion to oil firing. This calculation of 100 million tons includes Ea million tons for restocking. This is the total that will be required to build up our stocks by the beginning of next winter to 15 million tons, a figure the adequacy of which, I am sure the House will agree, is very questionable. At any rate, it is the absolute minimum. That is the target for the six summer months. The production likely to be available, in the opinion of the Government—I base it on their statement—to meet this demand, falls short of this figure of 100 million tons which, as I have shown, is a very low estimate of what we need. There will be a deficiency which the Prime Minister told us might amount to as much as 10 million tons. I take this to be the difference between the requirement of 100 million tons and the estimated production of 89 million tons, which the President of the Board of Trade laid down when he opened the Debate on the Economic White Paper a while ago.
I ask the Government first, What do they propose to do about that? It is the intention of the Government, so far as we can ascertain up to date—and we will be glad if any further information can be given—to try to close this gap of 10 million or II million tons, by savings of about 2,500,000 tons from domestic consumption of gas and electricity and about 250,000 tons from restriction of passenger train services. By far the greater part of the shortfall, three-quarters of it, will


have to be borne entirely by industry. I do not know whether that is a correct reading of the intentions of the Government, but all the facts are drawn from their own statements. I want the House to observe that this deficiency of industrial coal supplies for the summer, which the President of the Board of Trade estimated at 8,800,000 tons, is a very serious figure indeed. It is the equivalent of one-third of industry's total requirements for those six summer months. That is the picture as I understand it to be today, upon the latest information we have had from Government spokesmen.
Before I go on to speak of the effect of that shortfall on industry and on the domestic consumer, there is one remarkable point to which I must call the attention of the House. The estimate of the President of the Board of Trade for production for the six summer months was 89 million tons, without taking into account the improvement we hope to get. Of this 89 million tons, six million was to come from open-cast coal, and the remaining 83 million from deep mines. Yet in the six months of last year, which nobody would regard as a good year for production, the production of deep-mined coal was, itself, 89 million tons. In other words, the Government, from their own figure, are budgeting on a production of deep-mined coal this summer which is six million tons less than that of last year. That is to say, they expect a million tons a month less production during this summer than there was last year. This will be with increased manpower, certainly with more first-class miners back from the Forces, and with increased mechanisation. I confess that that Government forecast is quite inexplicable to me. I cannot understand on what it is based and why it is made.
Let the House look at it in another way. The estimate of the President of the Board of Trade works out at a weekly average of less than 3,200,000 tons of deep-mined coal a week. Yet last week, as we were all very glad to see, production exceeded 3,900,000 tons. Even allowing for extended holidays, or any other proposals there may be, it is a very wide discrepancy. The House is entitled to a clear explanation of these figures. Why is there such a vast difference between the estimate of the President of the Board of Trade of what the coal industry can

produce in the summer months, and what it is in fact producing even in the present week. Why is the Government estimate of production for the summer so pitifully low?
I turn from that to the effect of these deficiencies, as the Government have described them, on the industrial and on the domestic consumer. There cannot be any doubt that at present industry is suffering, in all its branches, from a shortage of coal and the failure to provide more than 33⁓ per cent. allocation for many industries. I could quote many examples of the difficulties experienced, for example by the cotton spinners, paper manufacturers and others. Hon. Members may feel, at first sight, that paper does not seem to be of such vital importance. None the less, shortage of wrappings and packing materials can be a great handicap to our export drive, as the President of the Board of Trade would agree. I received one letter which particularly struck me from a representative of the leather trade. He tells me that the allocation they are receiving now means the equivalent of standing idle for two weeks and then working for one week. I am willing to hand the letter to the Minister of Fuel and Power if he would like it. But that is not all. Some firms cannot even do this, because of difficulties such as the length of processing, which are inherent in their particular industries. So my correspondent tells me—and I have no doubt at all about his bona fides—the result may well be to force some firms out of business altogether. That is an example of the real difficulties which are at present being experienced by industry.
I, therefore, ask the Government, What are the prospects of improvement? We have been told that the total fuel available for industry in the summer months is likely to be a little more than two-thirds of what is required. How is that available coal to be apportioned as between industries and different activities? This is of fundamental importance to industry. The general principle of the Cripps plan, as it was called, was, I think I am right in saying, that a basic ration should be guaranteed to all industries, and so far as I am aware nobody in industry today knows what that basic ration is to be from 1st May next. The Cripps plan also provided that over and above the basic ration, there would be a pool available in each region to make up allocations to the


more important undertakings or processes. I ask the Government, and the right hon. Gentleman who is to reply, On what basis of priorities are supplies from these regional pools to be allotted? Is this to be determined centrally in Whitehall or in regions; if it is to be done regionally, are any principles laid down to guide the regions, and if so, what are those principles? On what list of priorities are the Government working? For instance, have they devised any plans for relating coal supplies to end products and for relating coal allocations to available supplies of other scarce raw materials?
I take an example to explain what I mean. I take the most important example I can, that of steel. Let us see what the position is there. Under the Cripps plan, the steel industry received an allocation of 75 per cent. of its requirements. I understand that is the rate which the industry is receiving at the present time. What is to happen after 1st May? Will the allocation continue to be 75 per cent. or will the iron and steel industry get its full too per cent? It is already well known to many hon. Members that the shortage of steel will cause almost as many difficulties to industry this year as the shortage of coal. Yet the production of steel is limited in its turn by the availability of coal. What priorities have the Government in mind for allocating available steel production? Will adequate steel be available, for instance, to achieve our export target of 135 per cent. of the 1938 level—[HON. MEMBERS: "140 per cent."]—140 per cent. of the 1938 level by the end of the present year which is laid down in the White Paper? If the Government decide that the steel industry must have too per cent. of its coal allocation to enable it to do that, what will be the effect on coal allocations to other countries? I really think the House must know these things, and industry must know these things too. The uncertainty facing industry today creates great difficulties. I must remind the House that 1st May is only four weeks off, and it does not seem unreasonable that we should now ask what industry is to receive on that date. So much for industrial consumption.
I turn now to the domestic consumer. The President of the Board of Trade told us recently—quite rightly—that there has already been a very large reduction in domestic coal allocation. It is, no doubt,

in consequence of this, as the House can see for itself, that there was an increase in the consumption of electricity by the domestic consumer before recent events took place. The Government have decided that it is necessary to impose further reductions on the consumption of fuel this summer, in this case on the consumption of gas and electricity. This is a very serious business. No one should overlook the immense burden which the housewife is now carrying after six years of war. She is now called on to endure a further restriction for a long period. I have received—no doubt the Government and hon. Members in all parts of the House have also received—many heartrending letters about the conditions under which the housewife will have to work if these restrictions, imposed by the right hon. Gentleman originally for a very short time—at most a week—have to be continued all through the long so-called summer months. I use the word "so-called" advisedly, because we know very well what a British summer can be like.
There are housewives and their families who have no access, for instance, to industrial canteens. They have to manage as best they can, on the rations of the present day, and with the perplexities that cooking entails with the present allowances. Then there is the problem of household washing, especially in the case of families with small children. If, on top of all this, they have to look forward to fuel rationing, with its effect on domestic cooking and washing, throughout the summer months, it is hardly surprising that they should feel deep indignation. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman will dispute that. The Prime Minister told us on 27th March that the Government's target for domestic fuel restrictions is a saving of 2,500,000 tons of coal during the summer in respect of domestic consumption of gas and electricity. How is this to be done? So far, I must confess, I have found the Government's statement of their intentions very vague and unsatisfactory. I hope we shall hear a good deal more about those intentions today.
Before I deal with the problem of rationing, I should like to ask whoever is to reply for the Government what consultations there have been with the electricity supply industries. One of the most serious criticisms of the Government, in respect of the sudden shutdown of electricity announced on that black Friday


afternoon, was their lamentable failure to consult with the industry until it was too late, on the practical problems that would arise. I know, as does the Prime Minister, that the question of fuel rationing was raised during the war, and the Government were given the views of the electricity industry. Here I must turn aside for one moment to say that I hope we have now heard the last of blame being cast on some hon. Members on this side of the House, for criticising the wisdom of fuel rationing during the war. There have been many attempts to make party capital out of that, but it is perfectly clear now that the Government have been compelled to come to precisely the same conclusion as some of my hon. Friends and the Coalition Government. I know that the electricity supply industry was then consulted and I know the Government have recently, quite rightly, been in touch with the Central Electricity Board who represent the generating and wholesale side of the industry. I read in the Press that over last weekend, telegrams were suddenly despatched by the Ministry of Fuel to the supply undertakings inviting them to a conference. I ask the Government to give us any information they can about the results of that conference. It would be good that we should be told.
At the same time, could we also be told what is intended about gas? Is it intended that gas also shall be affected? If so, how and when? We ought to know so that there, again, the consumer may at least have a chance to make his plans ahead. Clearly, there must be every possible economy in the domestic use of fuel, but I doubt very much whether a rationing scheme is practicable.
The saving to be achieved—2,500,000 ton of coal—represents only four days' output at most, and less than half the six million tons which the Government's own estimate of these summer months shows the reduction to be, as compared with last year. That is a very remarkable thing. Can the Government tell us their estimate of the present domestic consumption, and what percentage of saving this 2,500,000 represents? The rationing scheme would mean a vast staff, an additional burden of officials, and, above all, a grave new burden on the household and the housewife. Even with the Government's well-known power of popular and

lucid explanation, I doubt whether it will be very easy for consumers to estimate their consumption, and to calculate the best basis on which to interchange points for the various fuels, or to know, until too late, whether or not they are exceeding their ration. There, I am in agreement with the Government about the rationing scheme.
What is the alternative? I believe that the best method of tackling this problem of the summer months, as far as the domestic consumer is concerned, is by the voluntary method of appeal, and by giving the public all the facts. I say to the Government, as I said before, that it is their duty to tell the people all the facts all the time, and to trust them. I know that it is very difficult for Ministers to put themselves into the position of ordinary folk like us, but it is also difficult to expect people to give of their best, when, for example, they find that the Government's coal production target has been set so very low. It is difficult to expect people to do that when, for instance, so little effort has been made to restrict the sale of electric fires, or, shall I say, when every encouragement has actually been given to the purchase of electric fires. The Government must have known that for every one kilowatt domestic fire which may be sold, and which may cost only about &, the community is faced with a capital expenditure for new generating plant of not less than £40. I hope that we may hear from the Government a clearer account of this matter.
I have dealt with the position as we see it, and the effect of the coal position on domestic and industrial consumption. I would ask the Government some further questions about the practical steps they are taking, or should be taking, to bridge the gap between requirements and the supplies of coal. It is very gratifying to see the increase in recruitment for the mines. We all hope that this will continue, but, at the same time, I must ask the Government what progress is being made with the obtaining of Polish or other foreign labour, an I what is being done about imports of coal, on which subject there appears to be, shall I say, a certain divergence of emphasis, if not of view, between the Prime Minister and the Minister of Fuel and Power, and, indeed, the Minister of Transport. Nobody denies the importance of the European Coal


Organisation. I should certainly be the last to do that, but, if we have a case to put, why should we not put it to that organisation as forcibly as anybody else?
Are the Government instructing the National Coal Board to give urgent attention to the very serious problem of the quality of coal, and to the proportion of ash and other impurities which it at present contains? It is really most misleading to continue to base all coal statistics on tonnages alone, without making any allowance for the amount of extraneous matter, shall we call it, that now appears along with coal. I believe that some unfriendly persons describe this extraneous matter as "Shinwellite." However that may be, the calculations which I have seen, and which have been obtained from a wide range of industries, suggest that since 1939 there has been a decline of more than 5 per cent. in the calorific value of coal. Is that true? Look at all the waste that that involves in respect of transport, deterioration of plant and loss of thermal efficiency. I ask the Government whether they could not publish figures of the calorific value of coal produced, to be read in relation to the coal budget figures. That would give us a much more realistic picture of what has happened. I would particularly ask them to pay the closest attention to reducing the percentage of impurities in coal at present being supplied to consumers.
I would also ask whether something cannot be done to reduce the consumption of coal by the colliery undertakings themselves. If the figures I have seen are correct, the colliery undertakings at present take about one-sixth of the total used by all industrial consumers. I place coke ovens with the all-industrial consumers. That seems an extremely high percentage, and I wonder whether some substantial economies could not be effected there.
Before I close, I must say a word about electricity generation. Here, of course, the position is extremely serious. I would like to ask the Government what steps they are taking to achieve the most rapid possible expansion of our generating capacity. The main problems appear to be how to get the most out of our existing generating plants, how to increase production and to speed up the building of power stations, and the ever-pressing problem of exports. I referred just now

to the question of the quality of coal. If we are to get maximum efficiency from our existing generating plant, it is of the utmost importance that electricity undertakings should be supplied with coal of a type and quality which will ensure maximum thermal efficiency. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, this problem is of great importance to the electricity generating industry. Bow are the Government proceeding with their plan for spreading the load?
I would like to ask the Minister of Fuel to give us some information about the staggering of the industrial load, and then there is the question—perhaps the most important of all—of the construction of power stations. We were told that it now takes twice as long as it did during the war to complete a power station of comparable size. Can that really be true? If so, it is a most alarming fact. Can the Government tell us whether it is true, and, if so, what action they propose to take to improve the rate of construction which is of such critical importance? If we could do these things in the war—in fact, had to do them in the war—surely we ought to do them today, when the life of our industry and the continuation of our export trade are al stake? On the question of the provision of generating plants, I understand that the Prime Minister has recently been having discussions with representatives of the industry. May I ask him what is the upshot of those discussions? Are the Government now going to ensure that the necessary priorities of fuel, and so forth, to all those engaged in constructing generating equipment are made available, whether they are direct contractors or sub-contractors?
I want to say a word about the export of mining machinery and of generating equipment which we need for our own industry. I recognise how important it is to maintain our overseas connection for the future development of our exports of these commodities. No doubt, as time progresses, they will have to play an increasing part in our export programme. But I am not at all convinced of the wisdom of exporting these goods at the present time, in the quantities which have ruled in recent months. In particular, I would like some information about the exports of wagons, and the proportion of construction of wagons for home use and for export at present being carried out


in the wagon industry. It is increasingly clear that transport is going to be a serious handicap in the maintenance of coal supplies, and, indeed, of steel supplies to industrial consumers in the course of this year. I have put a number of questions this afternoon to which, I trust, we will in the course of the Debate, be successful in obtaining answers.
I should like to finish by emphasising that the margin between our coal requirements and the production which the Government anticipate in their figures is relatively small. We cannot, at present, increase our exports of coal. How valuable it would be to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if we were in a position to export a few million tons of coal at this time. How pleased the President of the Board of Trade would be if he could send some coal to Scandinavia in exchange for timber. What would not the Minister of Food give to be able to send coal to the Argentine in exchange for fats and feeding stuffs. If only we could get back to our prewar level of exports, how much better off we should be in many ways. Apart from all this, I feel that the gap between the Government's estimate of production and the minimum requirements for home needs and essential exports, which both sides of industry agree to estimate at 220 million tons, can be bridged by increased production.
The Government's targets are so astonishingly low that I would ask them what it was that determined them in making such estimates. If we want the nation to make an effort, as we all do, surely it is better to put up our sights, rather than to place them so low as to dishearten all those whose effort depends on the production of coal. If only we could get the level of production back to what it was in 1941, we should get 215 million tons as against our minimum requirements of 220 million. But, far from getting back to the 1941 level, the Government, apparently, have calculated on the basis of one million tons a month less deep-mined coal than was produced last year. The gap to be closed is relatively small, but the injury that is, in consequence of this present gap, being inflicted upon our industry, upon our export trade and upon the unfortunate domestic consumer, is out of all proportion to the amount of coal involved. It

is the Government's duty to spare no effort, at home or abroad, to bridge that gap. On no account can we contemplate a repetition next winter of what the nation has been called upon to endure this winter. On that, we are all agreed. But are the Government facing up to the situation? All that we can do is to make the constructive suggestions that lie in our power. The House awaits an account of the Government's stewardship and of their plans for the months that lie ahead, so that our industries may be given the best opportunity to raise the standard of life of our people.

4.16 p.m.

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Shinwell): The right hon. Gentleman will, I hope, acquit me of discourtesy if I deal with the minor questions which he put to me in the first instance. Before I conclude my speech I hope to be able to deal with the major and more substantial issues which he presented. He asked me a number of questions of which—though I make no complaint—I had had no notice. Therefore, it may be that while I am able to give an answer in general terms the details will have to be filled in at a subsequent stage. I can say—

4.17 p.m.

ROYAL ASSENT

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.

The House went; and, having returned—

Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

Civic Restaurants Act, 1947.

And to the following Measure passed under the provisions of the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919;

Church Commissioners Measure, 1947.

FUEL SITUATION

Question again proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."

4.26 p.m.

Mr. Shinwell: I was saying that the right hon. Gentleman had addressed to me a large number of questions, some of which are within the province of other Ministers. Nevertheless, I shall do my best to give him a reply.
To begin with, on questions of export of mining machinery and wagons, although it is true that last year a substantial amount of mining machinery was exported, it is not the intention of the Government to permit such exports to continue this year, other than those exports which are on order, and which, in the judgment of the Government, are necessary so that we may receive essential imports in return.
As regards the export of wagons it must be understood that large orders for wagon supply for oversea countries were placed many months ago. Many orders were placed towards the end of the war. For the most part, those wagons are intended for gauges different from the gauge in operation on the railway lines of this country. Those contracts must be complied with. So far as possible, however, the Government intend to discontinue exports of that character. We are aware of the essential needs of the mining industry in respect of machinery, and of the railways of the country. Indeed, I say by way of digression—although it is a point of substantial importance—that there is not much use in our producing large quantities of coal this year unless we have increased transport facilities. The Government have the matter in hand. In this as in other matters there is, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman, a sense of urgency.
As regards the staggering of the load in electricity supply, because of inadequate generating facilities, this is a matter now in the hands of the Minister of Labour. He has had frequent consultations with the appropriate organisations on both sides, and I understand that a scheme has been prepared. It now appears that certain modifications of that scheme will be required for the purposes of summer requirements. The requirements of the summer are somewhat different, so I am informed, from those of the winter, but, be that as it may, the Minister of Labour is giving constant attention to the matter.
Now I turn to the subject of the quality of coal, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. I say at once that he is pushing at an open door. I am fully conscious of the inferior material that sometimes passes for coal. I have to use it myself when I can get coal, and I am in precisely the same position as other coal consumers both as regards quantity and

quality. The facts are these. Before the war there was an inadequate number of washeries for the cleaning of coal, and those washeries have not been increased. Over and above that, some of them were disused during the war and they require reconditioning and the replacement of essential machinery. That is not always possible. In the old days when coal was got by hand, there was very little dirt; the miners picked the coal and, more often than not, picked it clean; occasionally some dirt was sent up out of the pit, but there were very few complaints and when there were complaints they could be rectified. Now, however, when more coal is got by mechanical means, the coal comes down along with the dirt, the rock, the shale and the like, and it is not possible for the miner, particularly when he is dealing with small coal, to separate the dirt from the actual coal itself. So both coal and dirt come up the pit, and unless the coal is cleaned and screened adequately, obviously some of the dirt finds its way into the hands of the consumers The National Coal Board are very conscious of the difficulty—

Squadron-Leader Fleming: What about the price?

Mr. Shinwell: I will come to that in a moment; may I just complete my sentence? The National Coal Board are giving this matter their attention, but it can hardly be expected that the National Coal Board, who have just had the assets of the mining industry transferred to them, should be able to deal with every one of these problems as soon as hon. Members wish. As regards the price of coal, it is very difficult to fix a price for coal which is different from other prices, because there happens to be a certain amount of inferior coal or dirt in the supply the consumer receives. It would be impracticable to adopt a system of that kind, and that is the answer to the hon. and gallant Member.

Colonel Lancaster: I do not know why the right hon. Gentleman says it is impracticable. Prewar sales of coal were based, in great measure, on calorific value, and there were penalty clauses if that value was not maintained. Now that coal is sold by the State, there can be precisely the same penalty clauses. It is not a new problem; it is a very old one.

Mr. Shinwell: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is quite right, it is an old problem. But he had to deal with it as the general manager of a group of collieries during the war, yet we received many complaints during the war about the inferior quality of coal and its low calorific value. He was quite unable to deal with it. The matter cannot be dealt with until, as I have said, we get the machinery essential for the purpose. [An HON. MEMBER: "And more manpower."] At the same time, I agree that the coal is not always suitable, and that is particularly so as regards the coal supplied to electricity undertakings. Undoubtedly, if the coal supplied to those undertakings were of the right calorific value, we should be able to save a considerable amount. There the matter must rest for the time being.

Mr. S. O. Davies: Will my right hon. Friend see to it, through the Coal Board, that more attention is devoted to the condition of the screening plant in many collieries in this country?

Mr. Shinwell: No doubt the Coal Board will take note of that observation, but I assume they are aware of these difficulties. There are high-powered technical experts associated with the Coal Board, and they are fully aware of the nature of the problem.
Now I come to the question of electricity generating plant. Undoubtedly there is a shortage; there has been a shortage for some considerable time, for the obvious reason that during the war it was impossible to proceed with the construction of the necessary plant, and it will be some considerable time before all the requirements of the electricity undertakings are fully met. Over and above that, it is obvious, because of the high consumption of electricity as compared with prewar years—there is a great disparity—that more generating capacity is required. We have discussed these matters with the Central Electricity Board and the Electricity Commissioners, and recently the Prime Minister with other Members of the Government had discussions with the managing directors and other persons associated with the electrical plant industry. They promised co-operation in order to ensure a speeding up of the manufacture of the necessary plant. The matter is now being dealt with by the Heavy Electrical Plant Committee, and, in addition, arrangements are being

made for progressing at each of the works where electricity plant is being manufactured, in order to ensure that there should be no delay or bottlenecks. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that nothing is being left undone to ensure that, as soon as possible, the necessary plant will be at our disposal.

Mr. Logan: Is there any idea of importing plant from the Ruhr to this country to save manufacturing it here, and the delays involved?

Mr. Shinwell: We have made inquiries and have discovered that there is some electrical gear in the British zone in Germany, and we shall take steps very shortly to acquire it, but it may well be that it is not altogether suitable to be placed in generating stations in this country. The matter is, however, being closely inquired into.
I think that covers the rather minor points raised by the right hon. Gentleman, and now I turn to the more substantial issues he presented to the House. The first is the question of production, because that is vital to our future fuel prospects. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising the matter. From the first moment I entered the Ministry of Fuel and Power I have never sought to conceal my opinion that production was the vital element in this problem. Indeed, that is obvious to everybody; we can attempt to secure savings by this means or that, and I shall show later that we are endeavouring to secure savings in certain directions, but the essential prerequisite of supplying industry and the domestic consumer, and providing a surplus for export, is that we should attain the highest amount of production. As the right hon. Gentleman remarked, the Government have set a target figure which was referred to in the recent Economic Debate. That target figure is 200 million tons this year.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: Including open-cast?

Mr. Shinwell: Yes, deep-mined and open-cast. There has been some confusion as to what is meant by "this year," and perhaps I might remove that confusion, or attempt to remove it. When we speak of the coal year we mean the year beginning on 1st May and ending in the following April. It may be that when the right hon. Gentleman and others have


spoken about the amount of coal to be produced this year, or the target set for this year, they had in mind the calendar year. We prefer to take the coal year, because it may represent a difference. I will venture to indicate where that difference lies. In the last three months, in spite of the severe climatic conditions—no one will dispute them now, though there was some doubt on the subject some six or seven weeks ago—[An HON. MEMBER: "Rub it in."] I am not going to rub it in; with respect to my hon. Friends behind me, I am very much more concerned about the future than I am about the past, and though a great deal might be said about the past if I had a mind, I will leave it there. Undoubtedly, in spite of the severe climatic conditions which have had the effect of making some collieries inaccessible, and preventing miners getting to their work, and in some cases have closed down collieries entirely, the trend of output is favourable. Output last week, in the circumstances, was excellent, for several collieries are actually closed down because of flooding.
I do not want to be misunderstood. I am not suggesting for a moment that the output is satisfactory: it will not, in my judgment, be satisfactory until it enables us to meet all our requirements. But the trend is satisfactory having regard to all the circumstances. We have to face certain adverse factors in relation to coal output, and it is no use trying to conceal them. One is that we are not certain whether the five-day week which has now been agreed on between the National Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers, and which is to come into operation at the beginning of May, will have an adverse effect on production.

Mr. James Glanville: We know it will not.

Mr. Shinwell: We are aware that an average of 350,000 tons is produced on a Saturday when coal is won that day. If we were to base our calculations exclusively on the statistical information available, then the outlook is far from favourable as to its effect on production. We have, however, to concern ourselves with another very vital factor in regard to the five-day week. I put it to the right hon. Gentleman, if he were in my place, responsible for the administration of the mining industry, and in particular

—I emphasise this—for creating a favourable atmosphere in that industry, would he, in face of the quite proper demands made by the National Union of Mineworkers, having regard to the arduous nature of their occupation, have denied them this privilege in such circumstances? Moreover, if we sought to deny the miners this long-awaited and long-demanded reform, it might have an adverse effect on production on a six-day basis.
Furthermore, now that the Essential Work Order has gone and we cannot direct labour, we have no means at our disposal of compelling the mineworker to work on a Saturday. I can now disclose the fact—it was very unpalatable at the time, and it presented me with considerable anxiety—that in many of the coal districts, the mineworkers took Saturday off, and in some of the coal districts they worked a short Saturday. We did everything possible to dissuade them from taking that course, but the men said, "We have worked five full shifts, and look at the coal we have produced. This is a hard job, you cannot expect us to work on a Saturday." I would add that the miners feel that they have as much right to have a Saturday off as have those workpeople who are employed in other industries where the work is less arduous. In those circumstances, it is quite impossible—indeed, quite impracticable—to deny the miners this reform.
The question we have to consider is whether, when the five-day week operates, we can secure the coal we need. The National Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers have not only agreed to a five-day week to commence in May, but they have attached stringent conditions to the operation of the five-day week which, in my view, are satisfactory, and are all the more satisfactory because I myself laid down these conditions with the consent of the Government last year, when the matter was under review. One of the conditions is this. The men are to receive a bonus for the sixth day, but they will not receive it unless they work a full five shifts. In other words, they will receive six days' pay—with a certain deviation in the wage limits according to the class of worker—but only on the condition that they work five full shifts. The only exception is in the case of a man whose accident is of


a serious character and is, therefore, reportable. In the case of sickness or absence on local authority business, where the men formerly did receive some payment, that no longer will obtain. In addition to that very stringent condition, the men have agreed to work longer shifts, which means they will remain longer in the pits in some districts than was previously the case, and, in consequence, we believe that if those conditions are fully applied there is every reason to believe that we shall get the coal we need. On the other hand, if men do not turn up for work, thus losing the extra day's pay, obviously output will correspondingly reduce.
If we promote the right atmosphere in the industry, and if the men are properly handled by the officials in charge—I am glad to say there is evidence all round the coalfields of a better spirit of comradeship among the men and managers than ever there was—I believe we are likely to have at least as high an output as we have had in recent weeks. I readily admit that even that would only represent a figure of about 4 million tons a week, and that may not be regarded as sufficient for our purpose. I have in mind the figures stated by the Trades Union Congress—a figure which, in my view, is essential if we are to provide for all our needs. Frankly, I do not believe we can achieve that figure this year. What I do say is—and this is the point I was leading up to when I spoke about the difference between the calendar year and the coal year—that whatever disadvantages we may suffer from during the summer, or immediately following the beginning of the five-day week, there is no doubt that with the increase in the rate of recruitment at the present time, after October, all things being equal and everything proceeding smoothly, we shall be producing coal at the rate of rather more than 4 million tons a week, and to that extent it may make up for the short fall preceding it. At the present time we have got 705,000 men in the industry; we expect 710,000 by the beginning of May, and the Government hope for 730,000 by the Autumn.

Major Lloyd George: May I ask a question with regard to the coal year, in order that we can make some examination of it? Does the figure of 200 million tons which appears in the

White Paper, refer to the calendar year, or to 30th April next year?

Mr. Shinwell: My impression is that it is the calendar year, ending 31st December. There is a further point which I must make in this connection, which affects the coal year. We expect that if the trend is as favourable as I have just indicated, when the autumn begins it will carry over into the three or four months following the end of the calendar year, before the end of the coal year. That will give us a higher production and will assist us in meeting our requirements. But it does not solve our problem. The real problem to which the right hon. Gentleman referred—perhaps the most substantial problem of all, and one that presents the greatest difficulties—is, how are we going to raise stocks of coal in the summer in order to make a beginning in the winter which will carry us through?

Mr. Eden: This is very important, and what the right hon. Gentleman is saying is very valuable to us. If all the assumptions he makes are correct—and I do not dispute them; I hope they are all correct, with regard to the consequences of the new recruitment and so on—I cannot see where the President of the Board of Trade gets his very low figure for the six months of this summer of 89 million tons. It does not appear to make any sense in relation to what the right hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. Shinwell: I think I can explain it. When I spoke of the favourable factors, which I hoped would operate after the beginning of the five-day week in May, I had in mind, first, that there is a possibility that it might not operate as I have indicated. The second point is that the miners will take their holidays in the summer months—

Mr. R. S. Hudson: They do every year.

Mr. Shinwell: As happened last year in the summer months, they took rather longer holidays titan was anticipated. I make no complaint about it; they had very few holidays during the war years, and certainly few holidays during prewar years, because they could not afford it. Small blame to the mineworkers when they found themselves, perhaps, with a little more money and decided to have a fortnight's holiday, even if one week was at their own expense. Therefore, it may


be that if holidays are rather more extensive this year than we hoped they would be, there will be a reduced output accordingly. We shall do everything we can to avoid that situation, but we must be prepared to face it.
My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, in arriving at his figure of 89 million tons, had in mind, first of all, 83 million tons of deep-mined coal and six million tons of open-cast coal. The right hon. Gentleman asked why the disparity in the estimate this year, as against the actual output during the summer months last year. Let us look at those figures again. The estimate for this year, according to the President of the Board of Trade, is 89 million tons, deep-mined and open-cast. Last year we produced in the summer months 94 million tons—89 million tons of deep-mined and five million tons of open-cast—a difference of five million tons. Why the disparity? —asked the right hon. Gentleman. I am bound to admit that the disparity appears to be because, having regard to the factors I have mentioned—the five-day week and the holiday periods—we are not quite satisfied that we can reach the figure which we reached last year. We had better face the facts. When I say "face the facts," I mean let us face the situation as it appears to us. It may be, on the other hand, that this is much too cautious an estimate. But we have been accused—I, at any rate, have been—of being much too optimistic, and on this occasion I prefer to be a little conservative.

Brigadier Peto: Could the right hon. Gentleman tell the House to what extent taxation will absorb the pay of the sixth shift?

Mr. Shinwell: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) addressed a large number of questions to me which, as I remarked, ought to be dealt with by other Ministers. I certainly cannot take on the mantle of the Chancellor of the Exchequer this afternoon. I prefer that to be left to him. Undoubtedly, all this means that we shall have great difficulty in reaching our stock target by the end of the summer period. That stock target is 15 million tons, and there are some who believe it is too low a figure. Nevertheless, there it is. It is a minimum figure of 15 million tons. We shall end the coal year at

the end of this month with five million tons. We might end the coal year with 51½ million tons.
Now I have to say something which bears on what the right hon. Gentleman said about the condition of industry. He is quite right; industry is suffering severely because of the shortfall of coal. The steel industry, the textile industry and many others want more coal. They are receiving 331 per cent., 50 per cent., some 75 per cent., and so on. I think before long it will be discovered—perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will not ask me for the details—that those industries are able to receive a higher allocation which, if it will not enable them to resume their previous full-time operations, at any rate, will relieve them of some of the difficulties which present themselves. But the position will be that we shall be left at the end of this coal year with a bare five million tons—the lowest stock figure we have ever had. We have to build up that stock figure to 15 million tons by the end of the summer period; that means to million tons. As the right hon. Gentleman rightly said, we shall be able to effect some savings with oil fuel conversion to the extent of two million tons. I would like to say this about oil fuel conversion. It may be that because of the rate of progress, we shall be able to reach a figure in saving of round about eight million tons of coal by this time next year, but, of course, that depends to some extent on whether the materials, tankage and so on are available. How are we going to meet this deficit of 8,800,000 tons? Clearly, we cannot expect industry to bear the whole of the burden.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: I thought the Minister said 10 million tons.

Mr. Shinwell: The right hon. Gentleman is quite right but his right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington has dealt with the point. There is a 10 million gap, but we expect some savings, one of which I have just indicated. Another is, there will be a saving of 250,000 ton on the railways, and there may be some minor savings. The deficit with which we are faced will be 8,800,000 tons. How is that to be met? It can he met partly by increased production—and I emphasis that. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not regard me as optimistic when I say that we are going all out to get that production. If we get the men, if the present


rate of recruitment continues, if we get the right spirit into the industry, and if mining machinery comes along, as we hope it will come along—there is at present a great scarcity, but we are stepping up production as fast as we possibly can—it may well be that we can get some further production which will enable us to cover a part of that deficit. But I am bound to say, that is speculation; we can have no firm conviction on that head. All I can say is, the miners are in good heart; they have offered us full co-operation, and they are well aware of the facts. We must, therefore, hope for the best so far as output is concerned.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: I have the Prime Minister's statement here. The two million tons saving of coal was additional to the 10 million, and not part of it. The Prime Minister said quite clearly that from the deficit of 10 million tons could be deducted two million tons. He then went on to say:
The deficiency may amount to as much as 10,000,000 tons."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th March, 1947; Vol. 435, c. 1416.]

Mr. Shinwell: I think there must be some misunderstanding about the figures. I have them here—

Mr. Hudson: That is what the right hon. Gentleman said. It is in HANSARD.

Mr. Shinwell: I should like to look at those figures. There is no difference of opinion between my right hon. Friend and myself on this, or with my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. We are all agreed that the actual deficit, subject to the savings I have just mentioned, will be 8,800,000. Perhaps the point could be dealt with further by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary.
I come to the question of restrictions on the domestic consumer. I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman, that if it is at all possible, we should not impose any further burden on the domestic consumer. I have no desire to weary the House by furnishing statistics relating to the gradual reduction in the amount of domestic coal consumed. There has been a very steady reduction—a drastic reduction, in fact—in solid fuel. Although, to some extent, it is made up by increased use of gas and electricity, undoubtedly the domestic consumer has suffered very severely in recent years, and continues to suffer. The position was aggravated this year because

of the severe weather conditions. Hon. Members may be interested to know that we provided a higher allocation of domestic fuel for London and the south this year than had ever been allocated before, and we built up our stocks last year. Unfortunately, it was far from sufficient. In a normal winter we might have got through; but because of the abnormal weather conditions, it was natural that the domestic consumer should consume more. The result was that his supply was inadequate; he suffered inconvenience, and, what is even worse, our stocks have diminished considerably, and we are in a worse position than we were in this time last year. Although we actually built up stocks and provided a larger allocation, we are worse off this year as regards stocks than we were last year. Therefore, it is not our intention to impose any further restriction on the domestic consumer as regards solid fuel. That would create an impossible position.
In his statement on 27th March the Prime Minister told the House that we could not count on a coal production during the summer months sufficient to meet current need and to build up stocks; and he said that the deficiencies may amount to as much as 10 million tons. Now industry, as I have already remarked, cannot bear the whole of the deficiency, and, therefore, domestic and non-industrial consumers must make a contribution towards closing the gap. I am very sorry to have to say that, but it is inevitable. What is the Government's aim? I want to emphasise that it is only an aim, and no more. It is to save 2½ million tons from this source during the coming summer months. This might be achieved by adopting a scheme for rationing domestic and non-industrial consumption of electricity and gas. Ever since February we have considered several schemes, but in no case were we satisfied that a solution of the many difficulties had been found. This problem of rationing is very difficult indeed, particularly as regards electricity and gas. It is quite otherwise with clothes and food, in regard to which the consumer can be issued with coupons, which he can present at a shop; if the supplies are there, that is very well, but if they are not there, then the consumer goes without. But when electricity and gas are laid on, and it is very difficult to impose a check, that is a horse of another colour.
We first considered a ration based on a proportion of the previous year's consumption of electricity and gas by the householder. That was the first scheme we considered. But it was open to criticism, because it allowed those who had been extravagant to benefit from their previous extravagance. It may have been said, "We will use a certain amount of electricity and gas this year, and we can use 50 per cent. of it in the following year." If they had consumed in excess, obviously they would be better off than those who had not consumed in excess. On the other hand, it would operate very unfairly, in our judgment, against the poorer consumer. We also considered rationing on a scale based on the size of the household. This scheme avoided the difficulty of placing a premium on previous extravagance and a penalty on previous economy; but it presented the difficulty of a scale which, while low enough to secure a saving from the average household, might be far below the requirements of those with special fuel needs. Without experience of the nature of those special needs the Government feared that they might be faced with the impossible administrative task of dealing, individually, with millions of cases. We have to deal with 11 million consumers on the domestic side. If the scale is set very low, as a result of which there is gross violation, the administration becomes impossible.
Another scheme suggested was a combination of the first and second schemes, under which the general ration would have been on a household scale, with the alternative, if more favourable to the householder, of a proportion of previous gas and electricity consumption. We might have set a scale which, although very low, might have met the case, providing an alternative, namely a certain proportion of what they consumed last year, whichever was the greater. This appeared to lessen some of the disadvantages of the other schemes. But, again, in the absence of experience of the nature and extent of special fuel needs, it was impossible to judge whether injustice could be avoided without great administrative difficulty. We considered a fourth scheme, which might be described as a price "disincentive" scheme, providing for a steeply graduated tax on gas and electricity consumption over a certain minimum. This scheme has been widely

canvassed, but it was open to the criticism that at one end of the scale, the well-to-do might, notwithstanding the tax, be able to enjoy far more than a fair share of the nation's fuel resources, whereas on the other hand the poorer family—and in particular those with large fuel needs—might, if the family was large, find the tax too burdensome.
All this does not mean that a compulsory fuel rationing would be entirely impracticable. It could be done, imposing hardships, of course—indeed, severe hardships. But there is insufficient knowledge at the present time to enable anyone to say, with any degree of certainty, whether a scheme of rationing could be worked fairly as between different households. Moreover, it would impose an impossible burden, as we think, on the, local fuel overseers, and would require the recruitment of additional staffs, some thousands strong, at a time when manpower is required for other purposes. Having said all that, I must tell hon. Members that two things are urgently needed. I have remarked on them already, but I must emphasise them. We must save fuel this summer, and gain the experience needed to say whether a rationing scheme can be applied later on—it may be necessary to do so; it depends on what happens this summer as regards production and the needs of industry—and, in the light of such experience as we gain, to decide which scheme is the most practicable.
The Government, therefore, are now considering an alternative plan in the hope that the fuel saving will be sufficient to make it unnecessary to introduce a compulsory rationing scheme. But should that hope be disappointed, we hope to gain experience that will be needed to frame a rationing scheme which will work. Before finally deciding upon the details of this plan, including such statutory and other restrictions as may be required, we are, at the present time, holding discussions with representatives of the gas and electricity industries. At this stage, I should say that all along we have had discussions, if not with the individual electricity and gas undertakings, with the Central Electricity Board and the Electricity Commissioners. We had frequent discussions with them last year on the subject of consumption, of their coal needs, and other matters. We shall also be meeting representatives of the various classes of consumers, not least the women's


organisations. Hon. Members will see the need for this. We have to ascertain the views of the women. They have to do the washing and the cooking, and have to remain at home—

Mr. Walkden: Not the Tory Housewives League?

Hon. Members: Why not?

Mr. Shinwell: I can assure hon. Members we shall meet the appropriate women's organisations. There will be no question of political bias in this matter. We want to obtain the necessary information, and we shall cover a wide field. We want to ensure full and active co-operation of the people I have mentioned, in what is a most vital national task, and I am confident that that co-operation will be forthcoming to the full. When we have completed our consultations, and considered the advice given to us, we shall announce our plan in full. I hope we shall be in a position to do this as soon as possible after the Easter Recess. Meanwhile, the existing restrictions on the use of electricity will continue until the new scheme is announced. We did consider whether we should reconsider the existing restriction scheme, but in the circumstances we thought that, as it might only last another week or two, it was hardly worth while either amending or revoking the Order. That is the position as regards restrictions.

Captain John Crowder: Could the Minister see his way to allowing electricity and gas to be used by the domestic consumer on Sundays, when the factories are not necessarily working?

Mr. Shinwell: I can tell the hon. and gallant Member that we have considered that. Indeed, we have considered all such suggestions, but that would require a variation of the existing Order, and we think that for the remainder of the period it is hardly worth while. But it is a point to bear in mind, if we should impose a restriction scheme not unlike the existing one. That, I think, disposes of the question of rationing and restrictions.
Now, I must come to the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman respecting imports of coal. If we cannot fill the gap by economies, restrictions, or imposing hardships on certain industries, or by further production, can we fill the gap

by importing coal? I have made some rather caustic remarks about this question of the importation of coal—

Mr. Eden: Hear, hear.

Mr. Shinwell: If I hurt anybody's feelings, I apologise unreservedly.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: The right hon. Gentleman must apologise to the Prime Minister.

Mr. Shinwell: The right hon. Gentleman will see that my right hon. Friend and myself are not at variance in this matter at all. We are in complete accord. Perhaps, I may go further than that—in anything I do I act under his instructions, which is the right thing for a Minister to do.

Mr. Hudson: Except in speeches.

Mr. Shinwell: But there is no difference of opinion at all. It was suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Assheton), the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bromley (Mr. Harold Macmillan) that the gap between requirements and supplies could have been filled, if we had imported a certain quantity of coal. I need not state the coal amounts. The Prime Minister, it is true, made a statement on this subject on 12th March. He said that, if we could get the coal from abroad to relieve our necessity, we should by all means do so, but he gave no indication then that coal would come from the United States or elsewhere, and his statement was limited to the practicability of obtaining coal from abroad. He also said in his statement on the fuel position on 27th March that this question would depend on whether it would
prove possible to import coal into this country without unfairness to our friends in Europe."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th March, 1947; Vol. 435, c. 1416.]
That is a consideration we cannot get over.
As I said on the 20th March, in a speech which has been heartily criticized—the right hon. Gentleman described my remarks as derisory, though I detected nothing derisory in them—this question has been under constant examination. I said the matter would remain before us; that practical difficulties had been encountered, but that it would remain before


us. I can now inform the House that I have discussed this question with the United States Ambassador, and with the South African Minister of Mines and Economic Development. At the time I made that speech, that was my intention, but it was probably better to have my discussion with the United States Ambassador before I informed the House. I have now had that discussion, and can inform the House of it.
In my discussion with the United States Ambassador the question of obtaining coal through the European Coal Organisation, through which this country could receive a share, was considered. The United States authorities have shown every desire to help us in our present difficulties, and they have made special inquiry into the possibility of stepping up their coal exports to Europe as a whole. But they have now reported that, in view of the limitations on movement within the United States, arising particularly from a serious shortage of wagons, they believe that any significant increase in the present export rate to Europe of 2,600,000 tons a month in the second quarter of the year, is highly improbable, and that, in any case, this quantity has already been allocated by the European Coal Organisation on a basis agreed with the United States, to European members of the organisation whose needs are no less pressing than our own.
The position can be explained in this way. The programme through the European Coal Organisation for the first quarter of the year was 2,100,000 tons. For the second quarter the programme was 2,600,000 tons. That takes us up to the end of June. I frankly tell the House that there appears to be no hope whatever of getting anything out of that allocation. I can say that the matter of receiving direct supplies outwith the European Coal Organisation was considered, but there were plain indications that there was no hope of receiving direct supplies.

Mr. Eden: After June?

Mr. Shinwell: After June. When I say "after June" I must qualify it to this extent—immediately after June. It may be that next year some new arrangements may be made or proposed. It depends largely upon the attitude of the United States authorities, and their relations with the European Coal Organisation. In spite

of this, the United States authorities are continuing vigorous efforts to increase coal exports to Europe to the highest possible level in the third quarter of this year, and in the event of additional coal being made available they emphasise that their policy continues to be, that coal exports to Europe will be in accordance with recommendations from the European Coal Organisation, whose recommendations are made by mutual agreement among the various coal importing countries. It will, therefore, be necessary for the United Kingdom to make a bid to the European Coal Organisation for a share of any additional United States coal. It may be that if the United States authorities step up their allocation from 2,600,000 tons in the second quarter to 3,000,000 in the third quarter, we shall be able, as a result of arrangements with the European Coal Organisation, to get something out of it. For the moment that appears to be the best we can do, except that I would say this: We are not unmindful of the possibility of other arrangements being made, if there are new developments. I cannot go beyond that. But the Government will do everything possible to secure coal from the United States of America, in order to assist in filling the gap.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what countries get this 2,600,000 tons of coal through the European Coal Organisation? Is there any prospect of our getting a portion?

Mr. Shinwell: I have answered questions many times in the House and given details. France, Belgium, and the other European countries that are members of the European Coal Organisation, and that are in short supply, receive their share of the United States exports. As regards South African coal, the Union Government are already providing valuable assistance by means of coal exports to certain bunker depots, which, hitherto, have been supplied from the United Kingdom. After all, if our bunker depots are supplied from abroad, from whatever source, to that extent we are relieved of the burden. I took the opportunity of the presence in this country of the Union Minister of Mines and Economic Development, Mr. Waterson, to discuss the matter with him last week. He was very sympathetic, very anxious to help; but it appears that, as in the case of the United


States, South Africa is unable to expand her coal exports without additional wagons. The position in the Union is that the mines are about 200 or 250 miles from the coast, and that they are very short of wagons. Mr. Waterson informed me that they have 8,000 on order, some in this country, a large number in Canada; and that if we could expedite delivery of the wagons, they might be able to assist us. It almost appears as if the wagon problem is indivisible. At the same time, this aspect of expediting delivery of the wagons is being explored with the Ministry of Transport, and I may say that the Minister of Transport was with me when we met Mr. Waterson. But I am bound to say the prospect of any success from this quarter is not hopeful.

Sir Frank Sanderson: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that, some while ago, certain industrialists who were prepared to convert from coal to oil burning, were promised that the oil would be forthcoming. Can he possibly give an assurance to other industrialists who are prepared in those circumstances to convert from coal to oil fuel?

Mr. Shinwell: The position is that we programmed for a saving of 8,000,000 tons of coal by next year, providing the equipment was forthcoming, and we think there is a reasonable prospect of securing it. It is doubtful that we can take on any more orders. We expect to save 2,000,000 tons during the summer as the result of oil conversion. As regards supplies of fuel oil, I can give the assurance. Within the limits of the programme to which, I have just referred, fuel oil will be forthcoming.
Questions were asked as to whether we could obtain coal from other sources. In fact, there is very little prospect. For example, the hon. and gallant Member for Basingstoke (Squadron-Leader Donner) said we should import coal from Nigeria, but the hon. and gallant Member was not aware that the total coal output of Nigeria is less than 700,000 tons per annum, the whole of which is required for internal and coast wise bunker consumption. The same might be said about other suggested sources of supply. I have dealt at some length with these matters because I have been very anxious to furnish information for which the hon. Members asked.

Mr. John Foster: On the question of direct supplies, does the right hon. Gentleman exclude the possibility of direct supplies from America? He will probably remember that I wrote to him in January giving a quotation for American coal, with an analysis, in terms of British units and gas content. I have not had an answer on that point. Would the Minister consider it once again, or will he treat it with the same contempt?

Mr. Shinwell: I do not think we ought to weary the House with a private quarrel—

Mr. Foster: No.

Mr. Shinwell: I am glad the hon. Member agrees with me. There is a little dispute between us about soda ash—

Mr. Foster: That is something else.

Mr. Shinwell: But it is not really vital, or germane to the argument. However, I can tell the hon. Member that in this subject of arrangements between industrialists in this country and United States coal producers, one of the difficulties is that coal cannot be exported from the United States of America unless under licence, and that is a matter upon which I am not able to comment. It is not for me to make any suggestions to the United States authorities. But hon. Members might have taken notice of the remark I made when I was dealing with imports. I said that there may be some developments; and if those developments are favourable, then, obviously, we shall take advantage of them.

Mr. Foster: I am sure the right hon. hon. Gentleman does not wish to misrepresent me—

Hon. Members: Order.

Mr. Shinwell: I have occupied the attention of the House for a very long time, and have tried to deal with interjections.

Mr. Foster: On a point of Order. Is it in Order to misrepresent my question? I did not raise the question of soda ash. My question had no reference to that. The right hon. Gentleman misunderstood the point of my question.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): I cannot help that. The hon. Member must not remain on his feet if the Minister does not give way.

Mr. Shinwell: It may be that, unconsciously, I misrepresented the hon. Member, and if I did I am sorry. I had no intention of doing so. I thought he was on something which had been the subject of a controversy between us—

Mr. Foster: May I put a question?

Mr. Shinwell: I am sorry, but I must go on.

Mr. Foster: May I ask my question again?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If the right hon. Gentleman gives way, of course, the hon. Member can ask a question, but if he does not give way, the hon. Member is not entitled to get up.

Mr. Shinwell: I should like to conclude my remarks. I did, in courtesy to the hon. Gentleman, sit down, but, if he will allow me, I would now like to complete my speech.
I said, when dealing with the more substantial points raised by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, that production was the vital consideration, and on that note I conclude. If we cannot secure, in a coal-producing country, the coal we need, then, obviously, there is something very far wrong. No one, no matter in which quarter of the House he resides, can dispute that one of the difficulties in recent months, indeed, in the last 18 months, has been the fact that certain elements were introduced into the mining industry towards the end of the war, who were of little value to that industry. Over and above that, many pits were closed down. What is even worse—and this has a direct relation to the question of recruitment and I hope hon. Members will take note of it—if coal faces are closed down, as so many were, either because men were not available for face work, or for some other reason, which was in the hands of the colliery companies, then obviously, these coal faces must be re-opened before we can absorb the men now entering the industry.
It is no use hon. Members talking about putting 100,000 new men into the industry. We must be able to absorb these men and at the right kind of work. Opening up new coal faces is a matter which we have taken up very urgently with the National Coal Board. They have recently conducted a manpower survey, and they have had a report from every one of their districts as to how many coal faces can be re-opened and how many others can be opened. This problem requires labour,

and that is another consideration. If, in the next six months, we are able to absorb a large number of additional coal face workers, with the good will of the men, we can get the coal we need. I rely on that, and I say to hon. Members that, anxious as I am to promote the utmost economy, and the utmost fuel efficiency—because far too much coal is wasted in this country, in industry, some of which is obsolescent and requires new equipment, and also in the domestic sphere—anxious as I am to promote economy and efficiency, I ask hon. Members to understand that my primary task, my responsibility, is to get the output. I may fail at that, but, at any rate, I am going to make the effort.

Sir Arnold Gridley: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to reply to an important question put to him by the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) regarding the staggering of hours? Has any progress been made with that? Then I would ask, following the question put by the hon. Member for East Ealing (Sir F. Sanderson), although the Minister says that oil fuel will be available, does that include an adequate supply of tankers and also oil wagons for delivery to the places where it is needed? This is a question which many industrialists have asked me to put.

Mr. Shinwell: On the matter of staggering, so far as it affects industrial operations, this question is in the hands of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, who is in consultation with both sides of industry. As regards the question of oil fuel supplies, the oil fuel will be available. There is a difficulty about equipment, particularly tankers, but we hope to be able to save two million tons of coal in the summer, and, as tankers and material come along in the autumn, I think we can save at the rate of eight million tons by this time next year.

Mr. Bowles: I found, in my constituency last weekend, that apparently there is a bottleneck in the provision of training facilities. Can my right hon. Friend say something about that?

Mr. Shinwell: We have recently had to revise our training arrangements. We had to impose very stringent training arrangements before the end of last year, and we have modified them in order to bring in more entrants into training. We had a


difficulty about instructors, and a difficulty about hostels, but the matter is being closely examined at present, and I hope we shall make adequate arrangements.

5.36 p.m.

Colonel Lancaster: From the Minister's remarks, one thing seems to be abundantly clear, and that is in relation to the question which my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) posed as to the accuracy or otherwise of the Prime Minister's forecast of 89 million tons, made up as between deep-mined and open-cast coal. This figure unfortunately is the one we have to consider this afternoon. Despite the difference of computation as between the calendar and the coal year and details of that sort, nevertheless, it is apparent that during the six summer months, starting on 1st May, industry and the domestic consumer, according to the perfectly conservative and reasonable assumption which the Minister made today, cannot look forward to any appreciable figure over and above that very modest one of 89 million tons.
I would like to take a leaf out of the Minister's book and deal with my points in something like the same sequence as the right hon. Gentleman. I want for a moment to revert to this matter of the inferior quality of the coal, which is exercising the minds, not only of industrialists, but of domestic users throughout the country. The Minister gave the impression that he attributed it, in great measure, to the condition of the surface plant which was handed over to the National Coal Board, and, in particular, to the inadequacy of the washing arrangements. Maintenance during the war was not an easy matter, but I do not think it is fair to say that, by the end of the war, there were less washeries in existence than at the beginning of the war. There were quite a few cases where new ones were installed. However, on previous occasions, the Minister has attributed this inferior quality to the inadequacy of the surface arrangements. This afternoon, I suggest, he put his finger much more accurately on the crux of the situation. Dirt arises in the pit, not on the surface, and the deterioration started, as all deterioration in our conditions started, in 1941, not because the seams suddenly got dirtier or because there was a different

method of winning the coal, but because—and this is not a contentious point—of the lack of discipline. I mean discipline in the highest sense in the pit. [Interruption.] The hon. Member knows as well as I do that a man who wants to fill dirt at the coal face can perfectly well do so. The men did so, and, progressively, from 1941 onwards, we got a higher percentage of dirt with the coal.

Mr. Glanville: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that there is a system whereby the miner sends nothing to the surface which is not good coal? It would be of no advantage to the miner to fill dirt deliberately.

Colonel Lancaster: I know that perfectly well, and I am not trying to make a contentious point. I am dealing with cause and effect, and I say that, with this slackening of discipline, there came a greater amount of dirt. Admittedly, we would get an improvement with more washeries, and, as the National Coal Board gets hold of the situation, these improvements will arise, but it will not be, in great measure, because of the reason which the Minister has previously suggested to the House. This improvement will take place in the pit, and will develop in course of time.
I pass to a far more important matter, that of the 89 million tons. I want, in my turn, to pose one or two questions to the Minister in this regard, because this seems to me to be the essential factor arising out of the Minister's statement this afternoon. I understand that, in the opinion of the Mineworkers Union, a matter of 18 or 18½ million tons is at stake in regard to the five-day week; that is to say, the loss of Saturday production is of the order of 18 million tons. Therefore, I assume that, in his calculations, the Minister has budgeted, in the first instance, for a loss of nine million tons during the next six months. The right hon. Gentleman hopes to make up that nine million tons by other factors. If the right hon. Gentleman has done so, then he is hoping, within the orbit of the five days left to him, by tightened discipline, by the good will of the miners, by a longer actual working shift at the coalface and matters of that sort, and by the introduction of additional machinery, by additional face men, and therefore, a higher percentage of face workers, to make good some part of the loss of nine million


tons for which he has, inevitably, to budget in the first instance. I would invite the Minister to interrupt me to tell me if my assumption in regard to budgeting is a correct one.

Mr. Shinwell: I think I can say that the hon. and gallant Member is not far out. His assumptions are, on the whole, reasonable. Obviously, there must be some reason why we have budgeted at so low a figure, and we have had to take into account all those possibilities. Of course, it may not happen. The hon. and gallant Gentleman is aware that estimates can be falsified.

Colonel Lancaster: Then we have arrived at a definite approach to this problem. We know now what the effect of the five-day week will be.

Mr. Shinwell: As the hon. and gallant Member is apparently going to make observations on the basis of what I said, I would like to correct him, if he will allow me. The hon. and gallant Gentleman says we now know what the effect of the five day week will be. I think what he ought to say, if he will allow me to put it this way, is that we know what the effect of the five day week may be.

Colonel Lancaster: What I am suggesting is that we know now from where we have to start. We know that we have to face a loss in one direction, and we know that we have to make it good in another. There is no time this afternoon to debate the desirability of the five-day week. Whether the Minister would not have been wiser in the first instance to have tackled the problem by a halfway stage of 11-days fortnight, is now no more than a debating point, but personally I wish he had. Nevertheless, he has taken one bite at the cherry by accepting the proposition that a five-day week from the 1st May is desirable in the full circumstances of the case—the overwhelming demand coming from the men and the benefits which he hopes to obtain from it. So we are now to embark on this great experiment, attempting to get in five days what we got previously in a six day week.
I suggest straight away to the Minister that whereas he will get all sorts of advantages from the good will of the men, I hope he does not rely on getting any considerable advantage from applying penal conditions. Hitherto they

have never served their purpose. They have been tried time and time again. During the war, whenever there was ever a variation in wage rates, nearly always some penal condition was attached to the general rise allowed at any given moment and, on balance, I think it can be shown that it was of very little actual material advantage. Where I hope he will get the advantage is from the good will of the men and the increased effort of the men. I hope, also that from the better physical condition which they will be able to maintain, and from the general enthusiasm for what is an experiment which they have wanted and asked for and which has now been granted to them, we shall see a tightening up of their effort and an improvement in the tonnage. Those factors, even though they are not negligible, nevertheless have to be very considerable if they are to achieve two things: to make up a deficit of 9,000,000 tons in six months and, during that six months, build up the 15 million tons or 17 million tons of stock without which we cannot get through next winter.
Those are two formidable targets, and nothing the Minister has said this afternoon, I am afraid, will go very far to filling industry with any sense of confidence as to the future. The summer is a short period in which to lay down stocks. As the Minister said, we shall have a holiday period probably not less than we had last year and, as the Minister well knows, from August to the middle of October we shall be lucky if we keep output pretty well in line with consumption. Therefore, his margin gets less. During May, June and July he will be dropping coal in one direction as the result of no Saturday work, and, in the other direction, hoping not only to make up for that but to put by a million tons of coal stock for winter purposes. As the Minister very rightly said this afternoon, and as I have said previously, there is only one way in which we shall manage either to bridge that gap or to attain to either of those targets. It is by coal production; and coal production as an immediate and short-term matter can only be achieved by three methods. It is the same old story—face room, men, and machinery. Face room inevitably comes first. I think the Minister was a little too conservative in suggesting that he required six months. I still think he can get his additional face room quicker than that.
In the matter of recruitment of men, we are getting satisfactory figures at this moment but we cannot expect to go on getting a very high percentage of recruits who have had previous face room experience. That well is beginning to run dry, and the Minister, in great measure, will have to rely on the intake of boys and youths and young men to be trained for coal getting. I do not want to take up the time of the House again this afternoon on the matter of training; no doubt the Minister has had an opportunity of reading some remarks on that matter which I made during the Economic Debate. I hope, in his own interests, that he will look at the question again. The decision arrived at on 1st January was not a sound decision; it went back on a great deal of ground we had achieved during the previous 12 months and, so far as I can see, it was a decision arrived at more than 12 months ago and, therefore, took no advantage of the ground that had been gained in the interim period. The other aspect of the matter is, of course, machinery. Machinery in certain directions is coming along satisfactorily; in regard to heavier machinery there is considerable delay, but that heavier machinery has more regard to the long-term programme.
There is one aspect of this matter which I referred to last time but which I would like to mention again. The Minister took a great deal of reasonable interest in the development of the British Mecco-Moore machine, which has brought about such very satisfactory results in the North and East Midlands. At the same time I would like him to show an equal enthusiasm for similar efforts applied to shallower seams which will bring about just as relatively satisfactory results if they are given the encouragement and the support they require. I refer to the use of power-loading equipment in shallower seams under the board and pillor method of extraction. If that is to be a success, the Minister will have to chance his arm in the sense that he allows considerable expenditure and possibly wastage of money in the continued experiment and development of that process. It is an expensive experiment in the first instance. Pits attempting to adopt this method will make a great many mistakes, and will be subject to loss gauged purely from the point of view of the cost of production.

Individual pits and individual areas should be allowed to carry on these experiments under their own auspices, and with a reasonably free hand in regard to expenditure, instead of being under too tight a control of either the National Coal Board or the Divisions in this matter.
Finally, I would ask the Minister to keep a very watchful eye on how administration is working out under the new régime. I have not time to embark on a review of the National Coal Board's activities, nor do I want to say what few words I do say in a spirit of criticism. However, undoubtedly a tendency is arising which will be inimical to coal production, either in the near future or taken as a long term view. That is that the authority in the pits is tending to be taken out of the hands of the colliery manager. There is no one else who can exercise that authority, and any tendency to pass certain aspects of pit discipline to any other authority will, in the long run, be against coal production. I have particularly in mind the question of recruitment, training and safety. Recruitment in the first instance may be undertaken by another authority, but so far as recruitment is bound up with training, and so far as training is bound up with safety, those in the last resort must be the responsibilities of the colliery manager. They cannot be welfare matters in any sense of the term. There are a host of welfare matters which require to be undertaken, and in that regard I would say to the Minister that one of the disadvantages we are under at the moment is that there has been almost a standstill of new developments in welfare during the last few months. I wish he would look into that.
However, as I say, welfare may be undertaken by another authority, and recruitment, in the first instance, by another authority, but training, so far as it is bound up with safety, so far as it refers to the pit, must be the responsibility of the colliery manager. I hope the Minister will exercise his authority in this matter to see that that development is canalised into the right channel, and not into any other direction. It is an important matter and it is one which arises immediately. It is a tendency which has shown itself even in these early days, and it is one to which I hope the Minister will turn his attention.
I am afraid I have made a very ragged speech but I have tried to take up some


of the points to which the Minister has referred. I hope that my doubts about the tonnage to be obtained will not be realised. We want to see success in this matter, but I think it was necessary to put it in its proper context, to recognise that there is a definite loss in one direction, and, therefore, if we are to make up that loss and provide not only the requirements of industry but the stocks which we want for next winter, the effort at this moment must be supreme.

5.57 p.m.

Mr. Hobson: I know many hon. Members wish to take part in the Debate, so I will endeavour to be brief. I want to make a few criticisms and, I hope, a few positive suggestions. I want to deal with the domestic allowance of 34 cwt. which householders may receive if they are lucky between the period of 30th April in one year and 1st May in the following year. I think everyone is agreed that that allowance is very small and causes grave hardship; but the real trouble is that very few people, particularly in North-West London, receive their 34 cwt. All they have received is 26 cwt., and what I am pleading for is that householders should get their coal allocation in their own right, in precisely the same manner in which they can get the rationed commodities. The present arrangement causes grave discontent and, further, makes a householder's coal supply dependent on the whim and fancy of the coal retailer. That is something which I am sure we are all anxious to avoid. Further than that, many abuses arise—questions of over-payment, and of large tips being given in order to get priority of supplies, and there is very often exercised by coal retailers discrimination against weekly coal payers. Hon. Members will be aware that in working households it is common to have coal clubs, and for payment to be made each week in order to ensure supplies.
I have come across cases in my own division where there has been discrimination against the weekly payers. What redress have the consumers? They can go to the local fuel overseer. Some overseers are good and some are indifferent, but, in any case, they are all overworked, and tremendously long delays ensue before priority of coal supplies can be secured, during which time the consumer may be without supplies. I have not yet

heard a case made out by the Minister why it is impracticable to ration household coal. I can understand the difficulties in regard to gas and electricity. It is almost impossible to ration that, and we have to rely on people's honour not to use current and gas during the switch-off periods. But, I fail to see why coal cannot be rationed. It may be argued that apart from the 34 cwt. we are nominally allowed, we can receive two tons of boiler fuel. But that boiler fuel is no good to the average workingclass home. It is no good for burning in open grates. This makes it unfair, and those who are better off benefit. Blocks of flats in which coal is used for central heating are licensed to receive a certain amount of coal, and in most cases which I have personally investigated I find they are granted the same allocation as they had before the war. To me that is fundamentally wrong, and I hope that something will be done in regard to it.
Then there is the contentious matter of divided houses. Where houses are divided between families under the existing regulations, the allocation is made to the whole house, and only on special application to the local fuel overseer can an extra fuel allowance be given to the sub-tenant. Why cannot the person who has an independent rent book receive a full allocation, even though living in a divided house? Why should they be dependent on the mother-in-law both for shelter and warmth? The whole thing is ludicrous. Even if it is a divided house, there should be a separate allocation. Why on earth cannot public utility corporations be allowed to buy fuel according to the calorific value? If they were enabled to do so, there would be considerable saving in coal. In a power station where I used to work I was given to understand by the chief that if we were allowed to buy from the same collieries as prewar there would be a saving of 15 per cent. Whilst I am on the question of public utilities I think it will be appreciated that the recent failure was due to the fact that public utilities were not able to build up their stocks. In normal winters, even in prewar times, it was the usual practice for power stations to take off from their stocks of coal.
I think a lot of criticism directed against the Minister of Fuel is utterly irresponsible, and ought to be directed


against other people. The breakdown in February was, in my view, largely the responsibility of the Railway Executive Committee. They had a shortage of wagons, but what were they doing to rectify the shortage? The railway companies have stated that they are able to make all wagons required, with the result that the private wagon manufacturers are making solely for export. I must admire the loyalty of the Minister of Fuel and Power to other colleagues. We have had a situation in which collieries have had to lie idle because of the shortage of wagons. I think some of the criticism directed against the Minister should be directed towards others I have named.
I am given to understand that it is against the advice of the Central Electricity Board that boilers at generating stations are converted for the use of oil. I can understand it being done on pulverised fuel boilers, but I am wondering how the engineers are to equip them for oil burning in boilers with water walls. It would be a very long process. I happen to know one power station where it took six months to convert one pulverised fuel boiler for the use of oil fuel. It would be far better to employ that labour in constructing new boilers and in expediting the erection of boilers under construction. I am not at all convinced that even as a short-term policy that is worth while.
I was interested in the question asked by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll) in regard to the increased costs at one power station—I believe it was Neasden. The increased cost for six boilers in that power station was going to be no less than £45,000 a year. In my view, that will reflect itself considerably in the cost per unit. I would like to see the labour which is being used on this conversion used for the erection of new plant. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) referred to shortage of generating plant, which is very acute. I believe there is something like 1,700,000 kilowatts short in the equipment of power stations. Are we sure that all the firms—and there are not many—which can make turbo-generators in Britain are all working a double shift? I doubt it. What steps are being taken in conjunction with the Ministry of Supply to see to it that we have more than two furnaces capable of making large enough castings for high

pressure turbines? That is the sort of avenue which I think ought to be explored in order to rectify this grievous shortage of plant.
The question of shedding the load has been mentioned, particularly by the hon. Member for Stockport (Sir A. Gridley), and it was suggested that night shifts should be worked as a solution. Apart from any complication of trade union rates of pay I do not know when maintenance work would be possible in the power stations if that were done. Maintenance men have to do their work when the plant has been shut down. I think whoever gave that advice must have given it without considering that factor at all. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will give some answer to the criticisms I have made. I wish to stress that full attention should be given by the Minister of Supply to seeing to it that generating plant is given top priority.

6.9 p.m.

Major Lloyd George: I am afraid the House is getting rather used to statements of a fairly serious character, particularly in recent months, when we are discussing coal. But I doubt very much whether we could possibly have had a more serious statement than we have had from the Minister this afternoon. In addition to its seriousness, I am bound to confess—and I am sure I am not the only one in this House—to being a little bewildered by the statement of the Minister, taken in conjunction with statements made by the Prime Minister and the President of the Board of Trade on the same subject. It is important that the House should know the real position. But I defy anyone in this House, having read the speeches of the Prime Minister, the President of the Board of Trade, and the Minister of Fuel and Power today, to know what the actual position is at the present time. I hope I have not been stupid when looking through the speeches, but so far as I can see, when the President of the Board of Trade gave his coal budget on 10th March he came to the conclusion that our requirements would be 89 million tons—that is 91 million tons, minas 2 million tons. In that requirement budget, I notice that the first item is, "Stocking up, 10 million tons." The President of the Board of Trade's statement, according to HANSARD, was that 89 million tons requirement includes the 10 million tons stocking up.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Gaitskell): indicated dissent.

Major Lloyd George: The Parliamentary Secretary shakes his head. This is a matter of tremendous importance. I will read the statement:
I will now give the House the rest of the budget figures. In millions of tons stocking up, 10; electricity, 11.8; gas,…
And so on. Later he said:
making 91 million tons, from which should he deducted a saving by coal-oil conversion of 2 million."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th March, 1947; Vol. 434, c. 982–3.]
I think it is accepted that he has included 10 million tons stocking up in the budget of 89 million tons. Then we come to the Prime Minister's speech last Thursday. He said:
Total requirements for consumption during the six months 1st May to 31st October, 1947, are estimated at 92,000,000 tons. To this must be added a figure of 10,000,000 tons required to rebuild stocks by 1st November."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th March, 1947; Vol. 435, c. 1415.]
There is, therefore, a difference of 10 million tons between the statements made by the Prime Minister and the President of the Board of Trade on our coal position. That makes a tremendous difference in budgeting, especially when we are talking in terms of saving 250,000 tons here, and 2 million tons there. Unless I have wrongly read the OFFICIAL REPORT, the Prime Minister's figure is 10 million tons different from that of the President of the Board of Trade. Which is right I do not know. Perhaps we shall know later. The fact is that two responsible Ministers, one the head of the Government, have given amounts varying by 10 million tons from each other. Let us assume that the Prime Minister's figure is correct, as experience of the past shows it better to take the pessimistic, rather than the optimistic, view.
Let us assume that there is 10 million tons to be got this summer somehow, if we are to start the winter with 15 million tons in stock. The railways are going to save 250,000 tons. The domestic consumer must again go into the breach with 2,500,000 tons of coal used in electricity and gas. There is to be no rationing, and I am glad to know that what I thought in 1942 the present Minister thinks in 1947. The matter was very carefully examined at that time—it was the first duty I had—

and for exactly the same reasons as the present Minister, I considered it was quite impossible to have a rationing scheme. That was the only reason that was not done, and the present Minister has obviously been given the same advice which I was given.
I want to come back to this 83 million tons figure for production this summer. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) pointed out, this is 6 million tons less than the deep-mined coal got last summer. When the Minister referred to the five-day week which is to operate shortly, he said at first that we did not really know whether it was going to affect output or not; he could not say. It is quite obvious from the fact that he has put down the estimate from 89 million tons to 83 million tons, that he expects it to go down. He went on to say that it was important, in order to create a better atmosphere in this industry, that the five-day week should be given. There are many people who know the industry far better than I do who agree that, under mechanisation, the five-day week is essential for the sake of maintaining equipment. I do not think there is any doubt about it. But if there is a doubt today as to whether the five-day week will reduce production. I can hardly think of a worse time to do it than at present.
Let me remind the Minister, when he talks about a better atmosphere as a result of agreeing to this proposal, that it is only right to remind him and the leaders of the mineworkers of this country that there is in existence an agreement, which has still over a year to run, in which the mineworkers of this country pledge themselves, in return for a guarantee of their minimum wage for 4½ years, not to raise any questions of conditions and remuneration during the currency of that agreement. That is signed by the president of the Mineworkers' Union, by the secretary, and indeed, if I remember aright, it was signed by all the leaders representing that industry. It was to be a safeguard for the miners as much as it was for the country, because I wanted to prevent what happened after the last war. Therefore, it is not a question of having to maintain a good atmosphere, when all that one is doing is to ask for the continuance of an agreement which was signed. It is quite obvious that the Minister expects a decrease in his output as


a result of it, and he has fiddled about with saving 250,000 tons here and a little there, when it is quite obvious, taking everything into consideration, that he will lose six million tons of deep-mined coal this summer, with a greater manpower than he had last year.
Before I come to the domestic consumer, I would like to say that it is a little difficult, but it is important that we should have these figures correct, because the whole safety, almost, of this country, depends on this House now having a clear idea what they are.

Mr. Gaitskell: May I point out where the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was wrong in the comparison he made? The total of the President of the Board of Trade included 17.6 million tons for industry, which is not the full requirements of industry but only what he thought they would get if total output was raised to 89 million tons. The Prime Minister's figure was the figure of total requirements, assuming that industry got what it needed.

Major Lloyd George: That is, he was assuming two-thirds, not three-thirds. I am much obliged. The Prime Minister's figure was 10 million tons and the 8.8 million tons is the net figure. I am glad that has been cleared up; it was very confusing. We know the difference between the calendar year and the coal year. I understood from the Minister today that the 200 million tons is the figure for the calendar year—that is, to 31st December.

Mr. Gaitskell: It is the figure in the White Paper, which I understand relates to the calendar year.

Major Lloyd George: If one takes six months of any period, and says that during that period 89 million tons are produced, that is 83 million plus six million, there must be 111 million tons to be raised in the next six months. Assuming that open-cast production is to be the same in winter as in summer, six million tons, perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary might tell us when he expects to get some of the new machines which have been ordered, and when he thinks they will have an effect on production? The average production of deep mined coal was 3.4 million tons, and this year the average was about 3.6 million tons. We had a very good

week last week, but do not let us have too much hope about that.
If the Minister gets the same production of open-cast coal he will have to average four million tons of deep-mined coal per week in the six months after 31st October. Does he really think that is possible, because it is vital to the figures on which we are budgeting? If I might remind him, it is a figure which everyone regards as a basic minimum. I am really afraid that it is on the optimistic side—I hope I am wrong but we have to average four million tons per week in the six winter months. Does the Minister think we can get enough men or enough improvement in man output to get that output of four million tons? The answer to that is extremely important, because even with the zoo million tons I gather we shall be on two-thirds production in certain industries. That means one of two things—either that all our industries will be on part-time, or certain selected industries will be on full-time. That is a thing we ought to know, and we ought to have a clear indication from the Government, not a week before it happens, but in plenty of time, so as to have discussions as to how it will least affect industry, on the basis that 200 million tons is what we are to get. I hope that the Government have in mind the attitude they intend to take on the basis of the Board of Trade figures.
Even this figure is contingent on savings by the domestic consumer, of 2½ million tons of coal consumed in electricity and gas—which, may I say, is a slightly more efficient use of fuel than burning solid fuel. That is to be saved by this unfortunate section of society again. The Minister has just told us today that the allocation of coal to the domestic consumer this winter has been higher than in any other year. Those were the words he used. That is not even true of the year before last, and there is a great deal of difference between allocation and what is received by the consumer. I heard many times, in statements made by the Minister, that the allocation of coal during the winter was higher than the winter before. I am certain that receipts were not higher. It is what one has in the cellar in the summer which counts, and the Minister, for some reason best known to himself, did not allow the freedom in that respect which we had before. In any case, the domestic consumer saved, as a result of the appeals made in 1942, four million tons of solid fuel—as a result


of a voluntary effort. Since 1942 they have saved another seven million tons of solid fuel, and they are asked to do it again because of the difficulty here, because of the five-day week, possibly, knocking down output by five to six million tons. This section of society has had all this burden to bear, and believe me there has been a great deal of hardship this winter, which people have not heard so much about in the Press.
Now what is to happen? I come back to this point which I heard an hon. Member making about there being tremendous waste of electric current among domestic consumers. It is because they have Nothing else to burn. In many cases an actual saving of coal by the allocation to domestic consumers in the last two or three years has been practically equalled by the increase in consumption in gas and electricity. I agree that does not prove the case, but what is happening? All over the country, in summer months, people are turning on gas and electricity. In no circumstances, if they can avoid it, will they use a lump of coal, assuming that they have got one. These people are to he cut again this summer. They are worse off today than they were in 1944, at the height of the German flying bomb attack, and the most fierce period of fighting which this country has had. They have to save yet another 2½ million tons.
Another serious position to which I would like the Minister to turn his mind is the coke position. The hon. Gentleman talks about space heating. That is an efficient way of heating large premises, but coke is used for other purposes of which not all members of the public are aware—in making gas, for example. I do not know whether gas concerns could have met the load they have had to meet during the last few weeks if they had not made gas out of coke. I should say that coke is used to an extent five times greater than it was before the war. In certain areas in this country there are distinct signs of a shortage of coke. I do not know what the effect of that is to be on the gas position next winter.
There is, obviously, this year a serious danger of another set-back, which will mean short time and further hardship and it will certainly mean that our export target will not be reached on the present basis. Many of us felt, most reluctantly, that it was important to import coal. The

Minister has told us today that that is not possible, at any rate for the second quarter, but that perhaps something might be done in the third quarter. I was surprised, as it is two months since the great crisis, that it was only a few days ago that the Minister saw the American Ambassador. I think he might at least have seen him earlier. In his own words he only saw the South African High Commissioner a day or two ago. Is that the way to handle a situation, one of the most serious situations we have ever had in this country—that two months go by before even an approach is made, as far as I can understand? The Minister made observations about a shortage of wagons in South Africa. We know that there was a shortage during the war, but we managed to send to South Africa several hundred wagons under conditions of great difficulty, which enabled South Africa to make a valuable contribution to our war effort in the Middle East, and in taking a burden off our hands in Brazil and the Argentine. According to the Board of Trade returns for this year, we sent to the Union of South Africa—where before the war we sent an average monthly figure of about 1,400 wagons—about 100 per month. For British India, where we used to send about 200 wagons a month, the figure has now reached over 2,000 a month.
Does not this show that there is no real thought being given to this matter far enough ahead? This crisis was very plain long before last February, long before last year, and it was surely possible for the Minister to have seen the European Coal Organisation? He has not seen them yet, by the way. I gather that he hoped to talk to the European Coal Organisation, but that he had not done so. I should have thought that that was a good thing to do as a start. Therefore, I think the House is entitled to much more information about the actual position. I think they are entitled to have it now, because we want to avoid, if possible, the sort of panic that took place last February. The bunkering of ships was to stop that night; the order was cancelled the next morning. I wonder who was consulted in the shipping industry about that order? Orders were given about electricity which were impossible to carry out. I would like to know who was consulted in the electricity industry before the statement of 7th February, that the sup-


plies of certain people were to be left on and others left off? That was technically impossible. Yet the Minister said it at that Box. We are entitled to ask what consultations there were with these industries before those steps were decided upon. I am perfectly certain that there was no consultation with the shipping industry before bunkering was stopped, and the reversal of the order next day.
Therefore, I hope that while there is time—and two months have gone since the crisis burst upon us though the signs were there years before—the Government will inform us of the steps they are taking to deal with the position. I think the House is entitled to know that the Government are approaching this problem in a manner commensurate with its magnitude. We are also entitled to know that the action they propose to take, will, at any rate, avoid some of the difficulties and hardships which were brought about two months ago.

6.30 p.m.

Mrs. Jean Mann: I have been very interested in that part of this Debate which affects the domestic consumer. I noticed that it is expected that the domestic consumer will help to bridge this 10 million ton gulf with a contribution of 2,500,000 tons. I also have observed that the emphasis throughout, both by the Minister and several hon. Members who followed, has been on the word "domestic." What about the offices, hotels and Government buildings? I hope that all these are included in the word "domestic" and that, in any survey to discover where savings can be effected, hotels, Government buildings and offices, town council and corporation offices and business establishments will be scrutinised very seriously with a view to making savings in the consumption of fuel, particularly of gas and electricity.
It is within my own experience, and that of a great many housewives who have tried always to live within the domestic ration, to go to offices on some errand or other, even to the fuel office, and to find no one in unless, perhaps, the fire. The fire would be burning hot and merrily, with no one there to appreciate its heat. It has been my experience, sometimes in business offices, to see both a fire and an electric radiator on the go at the same time. I have walked into hotels, particu-

larly in London, to see a scale of lighting and heating that was quite unnecessary. I do not refer to the period of the weather blitz and since, but to the time before the cuts. Often my fingers twitched with the desire to turn off switches wherever I went. I hope that the Minister will keep a very keen eye on that form of extravagance. I do not think that he will find much extravagance in households. We have had a very severe test. The householder is affected personally by the bill, and in most cases householders like to keep their bills within reasonable limits. In these places where no one is personally affected by the bill we get the greater extravagance.
I am very glad, and I think householders generally will be glad to notice that there is to be no further cut in the domestic ration of coal. Honestly, I do not see how there could be any cut. The ration has gone down to the bare minimum. I ask the Minister if he does not think that, even under the present scheme, there is a good deal of waste in the burning of raw coal in our fireplaces. I was at home recently suffering from influenza. I had another invalid in the house and for almost three weeks I had not a solitary piece of coal to burn. My sons, who are doctors, came into the room and wanted to know if it were not possible to have a fire. I was sorry I had no coal, and I felt that my February and January ration could have lasted out for that period in March if I had been supplied with dross or briquettes instead of coal. There are some domestic ranges, particularly where there is a water heater, which simply roar when a fire is lighted. They roar away good solid lumps of coal. If we had dross we could "back" with dross and so spin out the ration a little longer. I hope the Minister will turn his attention to the possibility of allowing us supplies of dross or briquettes so that we might make gentler use of the precious lumps of coal.
I would like to review the Minister's plan for saving electricity and gas. The first point is to ration people on the lines of their previous consumption. The Minister, quite properly, said that this is open to the objection that those who have been extravagant previously can continue to be extravagant. Further, it is open to the objection that one might have an invalid on one's hands, and it would not be right to ration one on the figure of a


previous year, when there was no invalid in the house. The second point was based on household need, and I think that is fair. The third point gives the householder the choice of either No. 1 or No. 2.
I come to the fourth point, which I hope will be rejected. That was the suggestion of steeply grading the price for everyone when they go beyond a certain ration which shall be the minimum. It is suggested that if they go beyond that they shall pay more. Coupled with that statement, the Minister said that he intended to consult housewives. If he consults the Housewives League, which is an auxiliary of the Tory Party, he will find that they will plump for No. 4, the steeply graded prices. If he consults the housewives who have always had to ration because of their limited income, he will get far better advice on how we can "make do and mend" under our present difficulties. I think there is a possibility of the two branches of housewives meeting in the near future. The real housewife, the one who has had to battle on a small income, is already aroused. She is not aroused against the Minister. She does not join in the cry, "Shinwell and Strachey must go." What she is crying out now is that these pseudo-housewives must go. I think the battle will be joined between the two sections long before the auxiliary of the Tory Party reaches London.
I know of housewives who have rebelled. I was one of those who rebelled against rent increases and means test impositions. I know of none of these new housewives who have ever joined in these struggles; nor did the old housewife threaten to march to London, braving the elements of snow and storm, inside a first-class sleeper with a cheque for £100 in her pocket. That is the new Tory auxiliary housewife, who will find herself up against strong opposition in the near future. I beg the Minister to rely upon his old friends, the old-brigade housewives, if he wants advice about how to make this saving of 2,500,000 tons.

6.40 p.m.

Mr. Spence: I will not detain the House by replying to the remarks of the hon. Lady the Member for Coatbridge (Mrs. Mann), or attempting to refute the charges which she has made against the Tory housewives. I do not want to waste the time of the House. I want to confine myself

to the problems that we must face today. The particular problem in which I am interested, and which I know, is that of how we are best to distribute to industry the limited amount of coal which we have. This is a problem which will need wide knowledge and experience. It is an unenviable task, because cuts there must be and they are bound to hit somebody including the workpeople. The important thing is that the cuts should be made as intelligently as possible by people who know the intricacies of the industry, and preferably, in full consultation with the industries concerned. I am afraid that, so far as we know the position in regard to the allocations which are made to industries, in some cases a wise policy is not followed, particularly where one finds that one industry consumes the finished product of another.
Having made that definite charge, I propose to give an exact illustration of what is happening. I will quote the case of the weekly periodicals and the trade and technical papers. In the autumn of last year they were running along fairly smoothly with a balanced economy. The mills which produce the paper which they use were able to supply their needs. Then, as hon. Members know, the publications were suppressed; and now they have received their new allocation. Naturally they expected a cut, and I will give the figures. The papers are allowed by licence to buy 85 per cent. of the paper which they bought in November. However, the mills which supply that paper are receiving only 331 per cent. of the coal which they got in November. Here is a first-class crisis, of small magnitude, which is approaching. Sooner or later—probably sooner—unless something is done, in general, our weekly publications will be put out of action. They will have to be drastically cut, because the fuel allocation to the mills which make the paper is not balanced with the licence for the purchase of paper by the various periodicals.
I know from my own experience in the textile industry that manufacturers are given permits to buy raw materials of various types when those who make those raw materials are not receiving the allocation of coal which is necessary to produce the raw materials. If one is in a certain section of industry, one makes plans on the allocation received from the Ministries and one may be completely let down because the right hand in the Ministry does


not know what the left hand is doing. It is most important to re-establish the confidence of industry in what the Ministry is doing to run the country under these difficult circumstances. I hope that the Minister will give an assurance that these problems will be studied.
I wish to return to the question of paper making. This is a very wide point which illustrates my argument. In the allocation of fuel, we have to study the type of industry to which we are allocating fuel. Some industries can run and stop, but others have to work all round the clock day after day. If once they stop, the cost of starting up again is so tremendous that it is uneconomical to run for one or two weeks and then stop for one week. We have to make our choice. The choice can best be made by consulting the industries concerned.
Another point touched on by my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) was the production of electric fires. There is no doubt that the production of electrical goods helped to increase the current consumption enormously. I do not deny for a moment the convenience that those electrical goods gave, but during the last year or 18 months these goods were produced which consumed current and used coal instead of the clothing which would keep people warm and save coal. The fault lies with the policy of the Government in relation to wages inasmuch as the price standards of utility textiles prevent the return to the textile trade of nearly half a million people who went to light engineering and have never come back.
It is a long-term proposition which I am putting forward, but it is one which I hope the Minister will accept. I urge the Minister to look carefully into the question of the industrial allocation of coal and to see that every side of industry is consulted, not just in vertical columns but laterally, following a particular article through to its finished state so that what is provided in one stage is balanced in the next stage and so on to the end of the story. In that way I hope every effort will be made to use what we have in the way of fuel in order to get through this summer with the minimum of loss and unemployment to the industries concerned.

6.47 p.m.

Mr. Jack Jones: I want to refer to the Minister's speech today as being a heartening speech but only in spots. I listened to the greater portion of his speech, and I am certain that anyone who listened carefully and has the capacity to assess the position will be satisfied that as things are we shall not find ourselves this year with the amount of coal we require to maintain full employment and to keep everybody working to full capacity. I am interested in this problem, because, as hon. Members know, I want to see coal available to those people who have signified their intention to use it to the fullest capacity in the interests of the State inside the steel industry. I listened with interest to the Minister's statement. I was not surprised to learn that it had been found impossible to buy coal from America. I never believed that we could. The hon. Member for Northwich (Mr. John Foster) seems to have the idea that if one walks down to the telephone with a bundle of British pound notes and rings up New York, one can have coal in three or four days. He ought to know that such things as coal cartels are operating in the world. Members of the party opposite when that cartel was built up were anxious to see that it operated in their interests. It remains in being, and we have to face what is happening because of that international position.
I am not so foolish as to imagine that America will let this country have a shovelful of coal. The ideology expressed from these benches is diametrically opposite to that of the Government now operating in America, who are more concerned with using their raw material to advance their interests in places like Japan than in sending to this country coal with which we would get our textile industry on its feet. America may have been very friendly towards us when in the same boat as this country while being attacked by a common foe, but today America is an entirely different proposition. Let us not fool ourselves into believing that they want to help us by readily agreeing to sell coal at our prices to this country.
I want to refer to the question I raised the last time I spoke in this House. There is only one way out of this difficulty and that is for the coal in our own country to be brought to the surface to be put to the


use of industry by British coal miners. I have every respect for these men, and I repeat and reiterate that they deserve all they have got and that it has been long overdue. But they themselves, and their leaders in particular, should face up to this problem in a statesmanlike manner. I am not asking that the coalminer should do as he used to do. I heard the Minister explain to the House that when we get mechanization—if and when—we shall get increased man output. That is agreed, but that is some time in the distant future. It is not tomorrow, and that is the point.
The textile industry is agreeing to a 12-shift week. That is a two-shift system for six days a week. The woollen industry fears that it will not be able to keep that great Yorkshire and Lancashire industry on its feet. The steel industry wants to do all it can humanly do to pass out steel to the various light engineering industries. Only today I heard from the hon. Member for East Coventry (Mr. Crossman) that he is gravely perturbed about the shortage of steel in his constituency. The shortage of coal is holding up the export of cars and other things we require to send abroad in order to get the food we so sadly and badly need.
The miner is, quite rightly, getting his fair share of what there is. It is a parlous problem when we learn that in these drastic times, the worst period of our history economically, nobody seems to have put the proposition to the mining industry that for this year at all events they should stay on a six—day week. Is there anything shameful in asking for that? I have heard today the splendid report, about which I am very happy, that the spirit in the mines is better than ever in history. We expected it would be. Of course, we could expect it. It is our natural right to expect that. Those men are saying to themselves:
Breathes there the man with soul so dead,
Who never to himself hath said,
This is my own, my native coal!
There is a slight parody there, but those men have a right to say that.
The spirit in the industry is such that the country should exploit it to the fullest extent. If the industry is at long last happy and the miners are contented—God knows, it is 40 to 60 years overdue—it is time that we should expect some response to the request I have made. There are hon. Members present who have

been associated with the mining industry, and I respect their point of view. I know what it means to ask them to go into the bowels of the earth and work there at all, and to ask a man to work a six-day shift when it has just been agreed that he should have a five-day week is a big thing. It is a great sacrifice to ask of a man, but no sacrifice is too great to ask in this country's present emergency. Had we in the middle of the war decided to have a five- or six-day week and not to fight on the seventh day, we should not be here at all. This war we are fighting today is a different type of war, but the results are the same. It is a matter of life or death, and this House knows it.
I want to ask the Minister, if I am the only hon. Member who has the courage to ask the Minister—why is it that nobody else seems to ask him?—to put to the Miners Federation the suggestion of a sixth shift from the young men only on certain Saturdays of the year. I have one or two novel suggestions to make. I was in America during the war, and I saw production flags everywhere as a result of inter-departmental, inter-State and inter-works competitions. Why cannot we have the champion miner or the champion pit of Britain—and pay them for it? I do not want hon. Members to become impatient with me. This thing is vital. We have 110,000 men in this country in the steel industry prepared to give up their Sundays and Saturdays—two Saturday afternoons out of seven at least—and rumblings are coming from the provinces that they may refuse because there is no sign of the coal they need. Coal means steel, steel means machinery, machinery means textiles, textiles mean exports and exports mean food. From coal we go through the whole gamut of industry. It is still not too late to ask for the six-shift week, at all events for the rest of this year.
I want to refer to the statements made in regard to generating plant. Hon. Members opposite know better than hon. Members on this side what the real position is. The right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) and the right hon. Member for the City of London (Sir A. Duncan) are men who have experience and are unrivalled in their knowledge of these affairs so far as the steel industry is concerned, and in regard to the right hon. Member for the City of London this House should be big enough to recognise ability when it exists. The position is


such that, no matter how we try, we cannot expect to get new generating plant within the next two or three years. That should have been seen to when the war was coming to an end. This problem can be overcome by seeing to it that every facility is given to the miners—everyamount of food and clothing and all the incentives possible—and I repeat, and I shall repeat it till the people are tired of hearing it, that they are entitled in the interests of this country to give to their fellowmen what they are getting. There is an old saying in Lancashire "that what is good to get, is not bad to give."

6.57 p.m.

Colonel Clarke: I have listened to the speech of the senior Member for Bolton (Mr. J. Jones) with the attention I know it deserves and I hope he will forgive me if I do not follow him at once, though there will be several occasions in the course of my remarks when I shall refer to what he has said. I would like, as I always do in any Debate concerning coal, to declare an interest in consideration of the directorship I hold.
This Debate is concerned first and last with the present shortage of coal and the "Economic Survey for 1947" made it absolutely clear that this shortage of coal is the root of the economic problem. It says:
The 1947 industrial problem is fundamentally a problem of coal.
The people of this country must never forget the fundamental seriousness of that problem. Our whole industrial life and our standard of living are concerned because they are based on coal, and for the last century even the existence of quite a large portion of our population has been based on the fact that we had a cheap and abundant supply of coal. I agree that it was possibly much too cheap, but that is another story. Cheap and abundant coal has added enormously to the numbers of our population and it has supported those numbers, but the reduction in that supply is today leaving them without means of support. The reduction in the supply of coal is to a large extent removing their whole means of livelihood. I want to refer once more to a passage in the White Paper which really sums up what I want to say. The loss of our prewar coal exports is really the loss of the money we received from abroad in

sufficient quantity to pay for the wheat we imported into this country.
How can a sufficient output of coal be restored to get back to that position? At the present time the population of this country is living perilously unsupported. The process will have to be done in stages, and it is only with regard to the first stage that I wish to speak tonight. That stage is the building up of sufficient stocks in the next six months in order to avoid a crisis next year, similar to the one through which we have just passed, a crisis which caused everyone great discomfort, produced widespread unemployment, and seriously set back our whole economic recovery.
I believe that there are several lines of approach. Increased production, as the Minister said, is the first and most important one. As the hon. Member for Bolton said, the miners in this country really have it in their power to solve the whole problem quite quickly if they choose to do so. I see in the Press today that we have got back to the production level of 1943. If we can only get back to the production level of 1941, the problem will be solved. I do not propose to say more about that particular approach, because the hon. Member for Bolton has already put it forward very adequately, and better than I could. Economy is the next subject about which we have principally been talking tonight—the rationing of electricity and gas. I feel that this is an unfortunate necessity, and one that is going to bear very hardly on the domestic consumers, who have already suffered a lot.
There are three other lines of approach, one of which is the possible importation of foreign coal, and to which I will refer again in a moment. The next is the increase in opencast coal which, according to a report in this morning's paper, is likely to be accelerated through the acquisition of more engineering plant, which will produce a quicker answer than any other form of coal-winning development. Then, lastly, there is the question of an improvement in our transport system. I will take these points in rather more detail, and will speak first on the improvement of the transport system. I believe that our wagons and ships are not making as many journeys as they might, and that if those journeys could be increased, a number of collieries could


increase their output. Compared with prewar, the collieries, I believe, are only doing some three voyages, as against five in 1939. The reason has largely to do with loading and discharging, and the men engaged in those services, but the fact remains that that increases the need for ships. We want more than we had before the war. I believe that the lack of transport slows down the work of the pits on quite a number of occasions, particularly in those districts which, before the war, relied on exports.
In that connection, I want to make a rather novel suggestion. I believe that it might pay some of those exporting districts to allow the coal to be shipped as it was before the war, and as the coalfields were laid out to do. Wagons used in the pit-port service could be got back much sooner than on inland hauls. I know that we cannot afford to export coal at the present time, but I suggest that the coal is put into the ships and sent to some European countries mainly to keep the pits working and that an equivalent amount of coal from America or Europe is taken instead, so that, on total balance, there is no loss to the European Coal Organisation, or to the country.
I will now revert to the question of the domestic consumers who, as I have said, have already been cut down very severely. I make the plea that, whatever allocation is made to domestic consumers, they should get it. It often happens that the allocation in the area is not enough, and house coal supplies are the ones that always get raided, in the interest of gas, railways and industry. I would also suggest that alternative fuels should be considered. There are many countries in the world which have no coal. For instance, very little coal is produced in Central Europe. The fuel there is mostly wood, which is burned in large closed stoves. We burn a certain amount of wood in this country, but we burn it most extravagantly. No effort has ever been made to provide economical grates or stoves for burning wood, and I think that something of that sort might be looked into.
In the early days of the war, the A.R.P. provided rough, made up instruments for its work, and I believe that, in the same way, some form of wood stove could be produced in large quantities which might help a number of householders to overcome the fuel difficulty in the next winter

or two. The whole question of wood prices should be examined. The retail price, of course, is not controlled, but the wholesale price is. That is not satisfactory. I think that the retail prices charged for wood in the recent cold spell were often excessive. It should be sold by weight and not by volume or by number of logs. The organisation for providing the raw material should be improved. The main bottleneck, I understand, is in the transport necessary for getting the wood out of the forests and on to the hard road. Once it is cut and got on to the hard road, it can be distributed, but the gap lies between those two operations. In other parts of the world, other forms of fuel are used. During the war, the Army in the Middle East used heavy oil and water in home made appliances constructed by R.E.M.E. and by the Sappers, which worked most successfully. I believe that, if something on those lines could be improvised, it would be of great help to people, particularly in the country districts.
As to the question of importation, I listened to all the Minister said, and I fully realise the difficulty. However, I am still a little puzzled because I believe that there are very considerable quantities of American coal which are being exported today outside the amount controlled by the European Coal Organisation. I understand that, in February, the scheme of American exports comprised some 258 cargoes of 9,000 or 10,000 tons each, of which 49 went to countries altogether outside the control of the European Coal Organisation, such as the Philippines, the Middle East, Brazil, and other South American countries. I cannot see why some of that coal, not necessarily a great deal of it, could not be obtained.
Another point discussed with regard to the importation of coal was whether it could be discharged in this country. There is some difference of opinion about it. A day or two ago the Minister of Transport said he believed that from 250,000 to 400,000 tons could be discharged in a month but other speakers have rather contested the possibility. On the side of those encouraging importation from the United States of America it has been said that in 1926 we imported some 10 million tons, but the matter is not quite so easy as that. Ships have increased in size since 1926, and in the strike normal coastwise trade was in abeyance. Today arrange-


ments would have to be made to discharge big ships as far as possible without upsetting the normal discharge of other coastwise traffic.
We could discharge some 4½ million tons per year, I think. Ships are available. We had experience in 1926 which will help us in this regard. One important point is that big ships cannot lie aground like small colliers can, but must keep afloat. That limits the number of places where they can be discharged. The fact of expense must be remembered. It might cost up to 10s. per ton more for discharge. American coal, anyhow, will cost some £5 a ton, so 10s. will not matter very much. At the moment, this discussion is rather academic because no coal appears to be available. I believe it will be available and that some may be forthcoming as time goes on.
I want to refer to one other thing that the Minister said on the subject of clean and dirty coal, in answer to my right hon. Friend who opened the Debate. The Minister mentioned washing facilities. The fact that coal is coming forward in a more dirty state than it was before makes the job of working the washeries very much harder. These machines were intended to deal with an ash content of say five per cent., but if coal comes into them containing 10 or 12 per cent. of ash, then the machines are overloaded from the start, and they become very much harder to work. This matter of clean coal is vital, especially to electricity supply undertakings. Some of them take their coal in colliers of 4,000 tons, and the normal number of trips from the collieries to the companies is about 50 a year. Today the high proportion of ash probably means that 12 trips a year are spent carrying useless material.
The country is engaged in a desperate fight to obtain industrial recovery. During the recent crisis industries have been subjected to the greatest setback they have ever had, and it has been something like Dunkirk or Singapore during the war. Perhaps the psychological set back is worse than the actual one. I felt at first that everything had been damped down and frustrated because the coal was not forthcoming. I have rather changed my opinion. I believe the crisis was in itself only a symptom of what is really wrong, and that is that the fundamental shortage of coal in this country has had a sobering, and perhaps a salutary, effect

—another step in the process of disillusionment through which we have all got to go, a process in which we English have got to realise that we are no longer the spoilt children of economic circumstance and that we have now to fight to retain some of the standard of living which our forefathers fought so hard to gain. Our economy is linked indissolubly with coal and the output of coal. During this fight all those who have anything to do with coal—the Minister, the Coal Board, the miners, the distributive branches, the railway men, the collier crews—are all in the forefront of the battle. They are the spearhead of the attack to regain our old economic position. Coal production must have priority over everything, including housebuilding and export. All those connected with it must work together.
I believe they will work together, particularly if the Minister will take the country into his confidence as far as possible. Let him tell the country when things are right and are improving, as they are, according to this morning's newspaper, and let him tell us when they do not look so good. We are going to be asked for some form of voluntary rationing, I understand. I believe that, for it to be a success, the people must be trusted and must be told the facts. If the Minister tells them, he will find that they will do their best to help him.

7.18 p.m.

Mr. D. J. Williams: During the last few weeks we have had innumerable Debates in this House on the general economic situation of the country, and coal has been the central and dominating theme of all of them. All the speeches this afternoon have led back to that dominant and paramount problem that faces the country. We have heard recently a great deal about shortages—of consumer goods, of raw materials, of capital equipment and above all of coal. I think it is generally agreed that the supreme problem for this country now is to increase the production of coal. I have listened to most of the speeches that have been made in this House on the economic situation in the last few weeks, and to most of those made this afternoon. I find there have been really three positive suggestions as to how we might increase our coal production.
First of all, we have repeatedly heard the suggestion that we should import


foreign labour. Secondly—and we have heard a great deal about this of late—that we should import coal from abroad. The third suggestion, and I am surprised that it should have been made from this side of the House, is that the miners should abandon their claim for a five-day week and continue to work a six-day week.

Mr. Jack Jones: If the hon. Member is referring to what I said, that is untrue. My suggestion was an extra shift, for this year at all events, with never a word about abandoning the five-day week.

Mr. Williams: The suggestion was—shall I put it this way?—that the miners should waive their claim for a five-day week for the present emergency. I was very pleased to note this afternoon that the Minister emphasised that there has been a decided improvement in the atmosphere of the mining industry. As a representative of a mining community, may I say that that bears out my own experience in my own Division? It is certainly true that there is a decided improvement in the spirit in the industry, and, I think this is important as well, there is a growing realisation on the part of the British nation that the mining industry must occupy a higher place in the strata of our economy than it has ever occupied before.
The problem of increasing coal production is, in the last analysis, a problem of increasing manpower. To get more coal we have to get more men into the pits, and we must realise that fundamental fact. I heard the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) talk this afternoon about the narrow margin which exists between the possibility of a crisis and the possibility of prosperity in our British economy, and he said that it was simply a matter of a negligible quantity of coal. I would suggest that it is a matter of getting a few thousand extra men into the pits. We must realise that we cannot get more coal unless we get more miners. If we want to improve the possibility of getting more coal, we must continue to improve the atmosphere and the spirit prevailing in the mining industry, and the policy of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power is the right one in that direction. If we want to destroy this spirit, this new atmosphere which is now beginning to make itself felt, the way to do it is to tell the miners they cannot have the five-

day week but must continue working a six-day week. That is the way to destroy the spirit the Minister has been trying to create, and all the evidence shows that he is doing it very effectively.
For the first time for many years, more men are coming into the mining industry than are going out, and in the course of the last 12 weeks there has been a net increase of 800 men per week. I agree it is not a very spectacular increase, but at least it is a step in the right direction, and it indicates the trend inside and outside the industry. I agree the increase is not enough. We must improve it. The Government have fixed a time limit in saying that by the end of 1947 they hope to have 730,000 men in the mining industry, and that means that we must get at least 100,000 new entrants. I am very pleased to note that large numbers of miners are coming back into the industry, people who had turned their backs on it for many years; they are coming back because the mining industry has acquired a new status in our economy and a new atmosphere has been created inside it.
I believe we need to aim at a target of somewhere about 750,000 miners. In order to do that we shall have to continue to improve the conditions in the industry, raise its status in our national economy, and give the miners a better status in our social life than they have ever enjoyed before. The problem, therefore, is to get more men, and I believe there are four courses which are open to us in attempting to get the necessary manpower. First of all there is the very tempting suggestion of the direction of labour. We have heard it hinted more than once from the other side.

Mr. Eden: Never.

Mr. Williams: A question was put in the manpower Debate as to whether it would not be a feasible solution to get men from the development areas to go into the basic industries outside the development areas.

Mr. Marlowe: The hon. Gentleman has made a serious charge that hon. Members on this side have advocated the direction of labour. I would be grateful if he would point out to the House any occasion on which he could say that any hon. Member on this side has done so.

Mr. Williams: What I was saying was that we have heard the suggestion that the direction of labour is a tempting one, and we have heard hints to that effect from the other side more than once in the course of the last few months. However, it is the declared policy of the Government, and rightly so, not to resort to the direction of labour—though I cannot help contrasting that attitude with the decision taken in this House last night to conscript men into the Armed Forces. Next, there is the other method, of allowing the free play of economic forces to drive people into the mining industry. We have had that for generations. An ex-Member of the Opposition benches made a suggestion quite recently—it is true, on the other side of the globe—that the way to man the mining industry is to create mass unemployment and poverty in Britain, so as to force men into the industry because there will be no other jobs available for them.
Thirdly, there is the suggestion, in fact there has been quite a campaign about it, that we should import foreign labour. It has been suggested here more than once, and there has been a big Press campaign about it. I have been amazed to read the suggestion that with full employment we shall have to man our unattractive industries with labour imported from countries with lower standards of living than ours. If we are to man the mining industry on that basis, we have to face the fact that we shall have to import somewhere about a million men in the course of the next to years, merely in order to make up the wastage and build up the manpower to 800,000. Fantastic figures have been suggested in this connection. I have read the figures of 100,000, 200,000, and 250,000; and one might imagine that there are armies of qualified miners wandering all over Europe, eager and anxious to come to Britain to produce the coal which Britain, Europe and the world so badly need. Eminent economists have written to "The Times" and to other newspapers suggesting that all we have to do is to get 100,000 men from abroad, send them down the pits, and next day we shall have 100,000 tons more coal. I do not know where these figures come from. Certainly, 100,000 is a nice, round, convenient figure. It looks well and sounds impressive. If it is a figure we want, it is as good as any other figure we can think of. But there is one draw-

back, namely, that such a figure has no reality at all; it has no meaning, no factual content, and is completely devoid of significance when related to the realities of the British mining industry. We cannot pump 100,000 men into the British mines tomorrow. It sounds simple; statistically it is a perfect proposition. Theoretically it is an ideal solution, but in practice it simply does not work.
Between 1938 and 1946 the manpower in the mining industry declined by 82,000, but that does not mean that there are now in the mining industry 82,000 vacancies which can be filled up with Poles and displaced persons tomorrow morning. In the course of the last eight years, hundreds of collieries have closed down; seams inside collieries and colliery districts have been closed down; large numbers of working places inside those districts have been abandoned, and, in all probability, have become completely derelict. The question of manpower in the mining industry is not merely a matter of adding up figures. It is not a question simply of bringing 100,000 people from Europe or elsewhere. It is a technical problem of finding pit room inside the colliery where these people can work. I do not know where these 100,000 hypothetical miners are to come from.
According to all the latest information I have been able to find, there are about 250,000 displaced persons in the British zone in Germany. More than half of those are women, and of the men I think the least said the better. Many of them are ex-quislings from their own countries, who are afraid to return because of their past misdeeds, or they are semi-Fascist elements who dislike and disagree with the liberal and radical régimes now existing in their own countries. Many of them were collaborators; many of them are of very doubtful political antecedents. I doubt very much whether there are more than 1,000 miners among the quarter of a million displaced persons in the British zone. I have just been informed that the figure is 800. I accept that figure. Even with those 800 men, we cannot use them immediately. There are all sorts of difficulties. For example, we have no housing accommodation for them in the mining areas. The President of the South Wales District of the National Union of Mineworkers said the other day that if two


dozen families went to South Wales tomorrow we would have no housing accommodation to offer them.
Then there is the question of language. I know some of the right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen opposite are inclined to belittle the importance of language in the working economy of this country, and I agree that in a factory or a field the spoken language is not so important, because there one can resort to the language of signs. But in a colliery, in darkness, where one depends on the faint glimmer and flicker of an electric lamp or an oil lamp, one cannot use the language of signs. One has to rely on the spoken word. I have no information to indicate that the 800 or 1,000 miners among the displaced persons are able to speak English, and certainly they will not be able to speak Welsh if they should come to South Wales. Even if we had these 1,000 men immediately, and if we assumed that they were qualified and skilled miners, we would be entitled to ask what concrete contribution they could make towards the achievement of the Government's coal target in 1947. Their contribution would be negligible. If they were to produce at the highest rate of production at the moment in British coalfields, and if they started to produce at the beginning of this month, their entire contribution to our coal output for 1947 would be 180,000 tons; it is.09 per cent. of the Government's target; the other 99.91 per cent. of the target would have to be produced by British labour.
The situation in France and Belgium has been used extensively as an argument to persuade the Government to bring these people over. I have heard the suggestion from the Liberal benches some time ago, when my right hon. Friend was asked why we did not emulate the example of France and Belgium by bringing displaced persons from Europe to produce our coal. If we examine the coal situation in France and Belgium, we find that it does not speak very highly of the productive qualities of these displaced persons. In September, 1946, the manpower in the French mines had gone up to 141 per cent. compared with 1938, production had gone up to 102 per cent. and the output per man shift had fallen to 73 per cent. In Belgium the manpower had gone up to 114 per cent., production had been reduced to 76 per cent., and the output per man shift was 74 per cent.

Those are the elementary mathematics concerning the production by foreign labour in the French and Belgian mines.
I agree that in course of time we could employ 100,000 foreigners in our coal mines, but that would involve training, the removal of the language difficulties and the provision of adequate pit room. If we import foreign labour on a mass scale into Britain, it will have tremendous psychological consequences on the mining community. The miner himself will not object to work with foreigners. He is too politically intelligent and conscious to object; he understands the serious manpower situation. But it will create in the minds of the people of Britain the impression that mining as an occupation is something terrible, that it is fit only for unfortunate and inferior people from abroad, who are afraid to go to their own countries and who accept employment in the British mines as a last resort. It would brand our mining industry as something inferior, degrading and contemptible. I am afraid it will act as a sort of inverted Gresham's law, under which foreign labour will drive our British labour and make it far more difficult to man this basic industry with the kind of labour we want. For those reasons, I suggest that the importing of foreign labour on a mass scale is no solution to the coal problem. The only sensible policy is to make mining more attractive for British labour.

7.39 p.m.

Mr. Bowen: I wish to make only a few observations, as most of the points which I intended to make have already been made by previous speakers. This Debate, as I understand it, arises out of a statement made by the Prime Minister on 27th March. That statement was certainly sufficiently objective and gloomy to satisfy the most pessimistic critic. During the course of that statement the Prime Minister asserted that all possible measures designed to increase production were being taken by the Government, and that
the National Coal Board, with the cooperation of the miners' leaders, is taking all possible steps to secure increased output per man-year."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th March, 1917; Vol. 435, c. 1416.]
I had hoped that when the Minister of Fuel and Power spoke this afternoon he would give us further and better particulars of the measures that were being


taken, and of the steps taken to secure increased output per man-year. However, to the best of my recollection the only information on those points given by the Minister related to the opening of new coal faces and to mining machinery. Incidentally, I would suggest that the statement with regard to mining machinery was certainly non-committal.
I should like to deal with one or two of the observations of the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. D. J. Williams), while they are still within the recollection of the House. With respect, I take exception to two or three of his statements. First, he asserted that if we are to get more coal we must have more miners. I would not quarrel if he had said that better manpower in the mines in highly desirable, and indeed essential, if our industrial recovery is to proceed on anything like the lines we wish. But I do heartily disagree with the assertion that more coal cannot be produced with the present manpower position. The whole of the facts and history of production are contrary to that assertion, and I hope, in a few moments, to give some of the figures on which I base that statement. The hon. Member for Neath was most contemptuous with regard to foreign labour. I do not wish to follow him on that in any detail, but my observation during a visit to Belgium last month was certainly in conflict with the argument he advanced. As far as the quality of foreign labour is concerned, particularly that of displaced persons, we have rather missed the boat. We certainly missed the boat with regard to Polish labour in this country. Now, after a delay of about 12 months, we are training a very small number of Polish personnel for the mines. If proper steps had been taken with regard to foreign labour, and Polish labour in particular, nine or 12 months ago, it might have resulted in better production figures. Belgium is certainly making very successful use, not only of displaced persons but also of foreign labour from other quarters, in her industrial recovery. I must say, I was amazed to find the hon. Member for Neath raising difficulties. There is at least one right hon. Member in this House who can say that, within his recollection, monoglot Welshmen and monoglot Englishmen have worked side by side in the

Welsh coalmines without any difficulty. I suggest it is quite wrong to assert that the providing of adequate training in order to secure safety precautions in the mines presents a substantial difficulty.
I wish to make a few observations with regard to the domestic side, particularly the prohibitions and restrictions on the domestic user. It is certainly very distressing that all this disarrangement and disturbance of the normal life of the community should be necessary in order to save the amount of coal which could be produced in two or three days—because that is the position as I see it. I am sure the Minister will correct me if I am wrong. I say this as one who has advocated, and still advocates, the five-day week in the mines. The reason why the domestic user is to be subjected to prohibitions and restrictions is, to my mind, as a measure of insurance against the possibility that the miners will not produce as much on a five-day week system as they will produce at the moment, and against the fear that this summer the miner will take a longer holiday than he did last summer. That, as I understand it, is the reason why the domestic consumer of this country is to have prohibitions and restrictions imposed upon him. They are prohibitions and restrictions that will cause a substantial measure of hardship, particularly to the worker whose hours of work are enormous.
The Prime Minister told us, and the Minister of Fuel and Power has confirmed it, that many rationing systems were considered but rejected. I do not quarrel with that decision. I should like to associate myself with the observation of the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leaming-ton (Mr. Eden), that the Minister and the Government as a whole should have put greater value on and greater faith in a voluntary appeal—although, I must say, I was a little amused at the sudden conversion of the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington to the value of a voluntary appeal since last night. It should be remembered that the system which is to be introduced is convenient to the Government, because it will place upon the electricity and gas producing undertakings a very substantial burden which would otherwise be borne by the Government. I associate myself with the right hon. Member's plea for voluntary appeals, partly on the ground that what is envisaged will undoubtedly result in the setting up of another enforcement staff. I anticipate


the setting up of what might be called "M.I.5 Fuel."
I should like to make one or two observations with regard to the target laid down in the White Paper. The Federation of British Industries and the Trade Union Council have already expressed dissatisfaction with that target. Frankly, I cannot agree with the statement we have had today, and the figures we have now got, in regard to increased production and increased manpower by attracting volunteers to the industry. I fail to see why the Government take such a hopelessly pessimistic view of the prospects. Granted, one has to be a realist, particularly in view of the experiences of the last few months. But in the anxiety to be realists the Government have adopted a completely despondent approach to the problem. The "Daily Herald," if one can place reliance on the captions in that newspaper, today has a heading, "Coal Output Leaps." While we should be pleased that the present figures are on the up-grade, and should pay tribute to the men who have brought about that recent change in the position, we should remember that if output per man year last year was at the same level as prewar, our immediate difficulties would have been solved. If the output per man year were to continue during this year on a prewar level, then, again, our immediate difficulties would be solved. Consider the years 1941 and 1942. During those two years we had less manpower available in the mines than we have at present, and yet the target achieved was well above that envisaged in the White Paper. Indeed, I am reminded that they were older men. What has been happening during the last 12 months with regard to mechanisation? What possible satisfactory explanation can there be for a drop in the output per man year in 1947 as compared with that of 1941 and 1942?

Mr. Murray: Is the hon. Member not aware that production in 1946 was 259 tons per man, and that in the latter part of 1946—the last quarter—it was 272 tons per man, and that in January and February of 1947 it ranged to 279 tons per man?

Mr. Bowen: I am grateful for the interruption. I believe that the last figure the hon. Member gave was 279. Let me give another figure, that for 1937. Output

per man year was 308 tons. If the output per man year in 1947 were the same as it was in 1937 we should have a minimum, not of 200,000,000 tons of coal, but of 230,000,000 tons of coal. I was particularly disappointed at the right hon. Gentleman's failure to deal with the attempts of the Government to get over that difficulty. It seems to me we have two difficulties, not only the difficulty of attracting new people into the industry, but that of maintaining the standard of production amongst the people in the industry. It is not a question of fault finding: it is a question of solving a problem. I was particularly disappointed that the Minister gave us no indication of any great and practical efforts on the part of the Government to face the problems. I do not wish to follow the familiar ground with regard to the difficulties of Pay-as-you-earn, the absence of consumer goods, and questions of that kind, but I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will tell the House, because the House is entitled to know, whether all these schemes, all these possibilities, have been examined. If they have been examined, which have been accepted and which have been rejected, and why?
There are other points I have in mind. First, there is the possibility of providing a scheme similar to that in operation in Germany today—a points scheme. It is true that, so far, it has not been in operation in Germany for long enough for any judgment to be formed of it, but has the possibility been considered here? It would be some means of providing an incentive, and some guarantee that the men who work get the fruits of their labour. Has the possibility been considered of a system whereby a target—incidentally, a rather more ambitious target than some targets laid down by the Ministry of Fuel and Power in the past—a reasonable target is laid down for production, not for over-all production, but for production on the part of the man; and whereby, when a man has exceeded that target, any further emoluments earned by him for extra production are free of tax. Has that point been entertained? If it has been rejected, why has it?
I should like to know also whether any other steps have been taken with regard to fuel economy. The Ministry during the war did good work. The House should also be informed what further


progress is being made in that direction. Further, I would ask whether the right hon. Gentleman or the Parliamentary Secretary has any information with regard to the prospects of underground classification of coal. We have been told on several occasions that research is proceeding in these matters. Has it reached any practical stage? I welcome the evidence indicated by the announcement regarding the F.B.I. and the T.U.C., that on the matter of a coal target, there is a substantial measure of agreement; but I hope that, when the question of the fixing of the allocation of coal for industry comes to be considered, the small industrialist, perhaps doing vital work, although the size of his plant may not be considerable, is not going to be cast aside. There is a danger that the F.B.I. and the T.U.C. may work together to the detriment of the small man outside those organisations.
I am sure the news the right hon. Gentleman had to give was disappointing. We were reminded that in 1926, during the coal strike, this country was able to import 20,000,000 tons of coal. I hope that further explorations will be made by the Minister with regard to that subject. While I welcome the announcement with regard to new incentives, such as lodging allowances, and payment for removal from a non-mining area to a mining area—while I welcome those further incentives to attract new recruits to the industry, I cannot help asking why those new incentives were not provided long ago. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary, when he winds up this Debate, to tell us in further detail, whether any further incentives, on the lines I have indicated or on other lines, are planned by the Government, first, to get an increase in production per man-year in the mines, and also to attract more personnel, from home or foreign labour, into the mines.

7.58 p.m.

Mr. Marlowe: I entirely support what the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen) has said with regard to output per man-year, because that is a matter which the right hon. Gentleman carefully avoided in everything he had to say today. This issue has been shirked. Obviously, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, an increase in output per man-year would be a solution

of the problem; but the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Fuel and Power has no intention of taking any steps to achieve that. I think the speech with which the right hon. Gentleman opened will cause gloom and bewilderment throughout the country, because it amounted really to this: that he had no solution to offer to the difficulties in which he finds himself. The fact that the right hon. Gentleman was unable to present a case does not arise from any lack of Parliamentary skill on his part. It arises either because he has not a case, or because he knows that he is in the grip of forces he is incapable of controlling. The right hon. Gentleman has completely failed to answer many of the points put to him by my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden), and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will try to remedy that omission.
Let me take first this question of a target of 200 million tons. Although the right hon. Gentleman calls it a target, it is not a target at all, because a target is something which we set and which we want to hit. The right hon. Gentleman has not based his figure on what he wants to get; indeed, he admits that it is so, and that he wants much more. What he calls his target is what he thinks he may get, and dozens of hon. Members have pointed out that his figure is an extremely pessimistic one. Why has the right hon. Gentleman chosen it? Is it that he has deliberately chosen a figure which he knows he is going to exceed, perhaps comfortably?—because he pointed out that there were certain circumstances and certain factors which he could not take into account, but which led him to believe that things would work out all right and that he would exceed that 200 million tons. Is he putting it to the country that his target is 200 million tons so that he can then exceed it and be able to say to everybody, "Look how wonderful nationalisation is; we have got much more than our target"? Is that one of the objectives of the right hon. Gentleman? If so, it is not a very fair way of dealing with the country at a moment like this. I think there must be some motive of that kind behind his so-called target.
I am rather concerned about this matter of the five-day week, which was introduced, as it were, rather on a side wind. Hon. Gentlemen will remember that no


specific announcement was made to them about this. It was mentioned rather casually today by the right hon. Gentleman himself, and by the President of the Board of Trade in a previous fuel Debate, when he suddenly referred to the effect of the five-day week. That was the first time anybody had heard of any Government announcement on this matter. The right hon. Gentleman appears to have arrived at this five-day week without regard to what I have always believed was a strong consideration in the Government's approach to this question. I had always understood that the attitude of the Government with regard to reduced working hours was that they could not be justified unless it was ensured that they did not reduce output. It is a rather remarkable fact that the right hon. Gentleman has not taken that fact into his calculations at all. [An HON. MEMBER: "How does the hon. and learned Member know?"] Because the right hon. Gentleman said so himself in his speech. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman who interrupted was here, but the right hon. Gentleman the Minister said he did not know what the effect will be. [An HON. MEMBER: "No-body knows."] It may very well be that they do not, but it has always been understood as a principle of Government policy, which has been stated on a number of occasions by the President of the Board of Trade, who is more sternly realistic in these matters, that there could be no reduction of working hours unless it could be ensured that it did not result in decreased production.
The Minister of Fuel and Power has completely blown that away today. He has said "I have not the faintest idea what the effect. of this is going to be, and I cannot say precisely what my target will be, because I do not know what the effect of the five-day week is going to be." Hon. Gentlemen will remember that the Minister spoke of the 350,000 tons loss of Saturday coal. He said, "I do not know whether we shall lose that, or whether the five-day week will increase it or not." I am bound to say that I do not know, either, and I speak in these matters without any technical knowledge at all. I try to take an objective view, though I have no technical knowledge of the mining industry, but if I do not know how to get coal I am certainly in no worse position than the Minister of Fuel and Power.

Sometimes I think it is the one who is not entirely engrossed in these matters who can take the more objective view. I reiterate that it is an extraordinary position that the right hon. Gentleman has completely gone back on general Government policy in agreeing to a five-day week without knowing what its effect will be.
It is said, and I accept it, that there is a greatly improved spirit among the miners now. If that is so, ought not advantage to be taken of it? Ought not the miners to be asked to postpone their five-day week until we are out of this crisis? I am entirely in sympathy with the objective, and I would not stand for a moment between the miner and his five-day week. As evidence of that, I say that I would not choose to spend one day down a mine myself, and that I am not justified in asking anybody else to do more. Is this not the moment to ask those who have made mining their careers, at this time of undoubted crisis, and in view of this new spirit, of which I am glad to hear, to make this sacrifice as their contribution towards helping us out of this crisis?
There is one other contribution which could be made, also as a result of this improved spirit, and I do not think this is a matter on which hon. Gentlemen opposite ought to be touchy, because I only look at it as an outsider. This point is n relation to concessionary coal. I do not grudge the miners this coal, but, in relation to what other people are getting at the moment, it seems to be very large. Naturally, representing a Division in the South, I am chiefly concerned with the difficulties which the domestic consumer will have under the limitation of 34 cwt., which is very small. Hon. Gentlemen opposite know much better than I do how much concessionary coal the miner gets.

Mr. Murray: May I interrupt? I want to clear up that point. I do not know whether the hon. and learned Member is aware that in Durham, with all the free coal which the miner is getting, there are men going out to collect coal from the waste heaps and then going to work to produce coal because they have no coal either in their Coal houses or in their grates.

Mr. Marlowe: I quite accept that from the hon. Gentleman, who knows better than I do, but there is no doubt that there


is a very considerable tonnage of concessionary coal. As I understand the figures, if that were cut by only 25 per cent., it would provide the 2,500,000 tons which the household consumer is now being asked to give up in order to fill the gap. That was what the right hon. Gentleman has said—that the household consumer is the one who has to contribute to the filling of this gap—and the demand which he is making on the household consumer is 2,500,000 tons. As I understand it, at a rough calculation, to cut off 25 per cent. of the concessionary coal would avoid that sacrifice by the household consumer altogether. Perhaps I speak bitterly on behalf of the household consumer, but the hon. Lady the Member for Coatbridge (Mrs. Mann) has told us how sorry she was for herself when she was ill and could not get any coal. I am also sorry for her, and I am sorry for myself when I cannot get any coal. I feel that the South is being badly treated in this matter. Because we are not in the coal districts, because there are difficulties of conveyance, we are put on the lower rate of 34 cwt., which I assure the Parliamentary Secretary is quite insufficient for people living in the South.
I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to deal with these points and to approach this as a practical problem. I think it is completely wrong to believe that we shall get higher output by the suggestion of creating a sort of privileged class of miners. I believe the miner to be the same as the rest of us, and I believe he will make his contribution towards solving our difficulties exactly the same as anybody else. I do not believe that you will get more coal by saying you will give nylons to his wife, and even if you did, I believe it would be a bad principle. I believe, if we have a crisis, it is one which we have to meet by an equal share. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will answer those questions, which his right hon. Friend completely failed to answer, which came from my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington. Particularly, I would like him to answer the question I put to him: have the Government changed their policy on this quection of shorter working hours without any reduction of output? I believe it to be a fundamental part of our industrial policy.

8.12 p.m.

Mr. Shurmer: Both right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House have dealt with the means for more production of coal. I shall confine my remarks briefly to the question of both the domestic and social effects upon all the people of the country. I do not want to strike a note of discord, or even to delve into the past, but I would remind right hon. and hon. Gentlemen, when they try to make a lot of propaganda about the suffering of the people during the crisis, that, having had experience as a member of a City Council in Birmingham for 26 years, and by choice living in the heart of slums for over 20 years, I know the homes and the lives of the people of a large district in that city. Between the two wars I knew homes where they could not afford to buy three pennyworth of coal—there was coal but no money. It is no good their trying to make propaganda and to stir up the people on this matter.
On the question of the rationing of the domestic consumers, I want the Parliamentary Secretary to realise that it is difficult to ration electricity and gas in the home because, in some homes, you have both man and wife going out to work and they are able to buy much of their food outside whereas, in many others, the whole of the family have to be cooked for all day. So it would be impossible to ration on any scale the consumption of gas and electricity in the home. The hon. Member for North Wembley (Mr. Hobson) spoke of the delivery of coal to the homes of the people by retailers. There is no doubt that in many districts there was no real supervision over delivery to the retail merchants or to see that the retailers were giving a fair share to everyone in the districts they were serving. I hope that this year the Minister will see that the retailers get a fair share of coal. I feel also that, in the voluntary appeal to the housewives, the position as far as it affects their husbands' means and employment and their very future should be stressed in order that they try to secure coal during the summer months so as to have a decent store for the winter.
There is one point that is worrying me and which I have tried to deal with for the city of Birmingham, though it must be happening all over the country. I suppose many people will be stocking up


again this summer with a substitute which was partly used for fuel during the winter. I refer to wood logs. The position of wood logs has been outrageous. Poor people have been exploited over the price because, while there is a wholesale prices Order, 1946, there is no retail prices Order. In the city of Birmingham wood logs have been sold at a cost of between £9 to £10 per ton when the wholesale prices Order fixes the wholesale price at 45s. per ton, plus delivery charge. I worked that out for the city of Birmingham for a radius of 25 to 30 miles, and found that it would be about £3 19s., which would give the retailer a good margin at £5 per ton. Yet we had a few logs put into a bag for 9s. and people have been asked anything up to £9 to £10 a ton. I hope the Minister will consider this, and will put out a retail prices Order to protect the purchasers of wood logs.
With regard to holidays, we know that in prewar days, when quite a small percentage of the workers were lucky enough to go away for a holiday—very few compared with the number that went last year and the number who hope to go this year—there were far more trains on the ordinary service than there are now. To cut the train service by 10 per cent. is panic economy, because it represents only one day's production of coal. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is less."] It will have a bad effect, not only on the miners and their families, but upon the other workers who are hoping to have a little relaxation and rest, and we shall not benefit from the production which we would get from their work as a result of that rest. A holiday to many people is a great thing, and some will be having their first holidays with pay. I stood yesterday all the way to Birmingham with a first-class ticket, and in the corridors people were packed like sardines. That will give no encouragement to people to go away, and if it meant saving hundreds of thousands of tons of coal I would not mind, but it will not.
My last point, but not the least, concerns another bit of panic economy—the blackout. I have the figures for Birmingham, and I know for a fact that it is saving very little coal, while the psychological effect upon the people is bad. I live in the heart of my Division and I go home every weekend. I move around amongst the people and I know the position. It is all very well for us to look after the big things, but it is the little things

which irritate the people. Only 30,000 cubic feet of gas and 11,000 units of electricity would give modified lighting in the City of Birmingham, yet there they have a blackout. I would ask the Minister not to panic. From 5th June to 5th September lighting-up time is not until 11.15, which means it is not dark until nearly 12 o'clock at night.
In conclusion, I am optimistic about the production of coal for this year. I believe the early start has proved that we shall get the production of coal from the miners, and that, at the end of the year, we shall have far above the 200 million tons suggested by the Minister, both in the Press and from this Box. Nevertheless, I hope that the saving will not be made at the expense of the social and domestic life of the people through panic economy. I hope the Minister will take these matters into consideration, and that we shall have some reply on the question of trains, the blackout, and a retail prices order in respect of logs.

8.20 p.m.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: I suppose this House has rarely listened to a more depressing speech than we heard this afternoon from the Minister of Fuel and Power. The picture he painted was really black and pessimistic in the extreme. I think everyone will agree that the country is faced today by the fact that supplies are insufficient to meet demands, and it is clear there are only two alternatives. Either we have to increase the supply substantially, or take steps to reduce consumption. The right hon. Gentleman paid lip service to the need for increasing production, but he was at pains to emphasise in various parts of his speech the need for reduced consumption. He did not seem to realise what the result would be of reduced consumption on the scale he anticipated—and I propose to try to show from his own figures that that scale even was optimistic, and it would be very doubtful whether we shall reach that scale on his assumption. I do not think he realised the appalling results to the country as a whole, to our individual and national economy, of a reduced rate of consumption of coal during the summer, such as he outlined.
There can be no question that unless we get more coal than the 83 million tons the Minister forecast during the summer six months, there is bound to be actual unemployment on some scale this summer,


and, what is of even greater importance, there is bound to be widespread underemployment. It is going to be a question of firms working three days a week, or four days a week, a week in and week out, or the equivalent work of two full weeks, and then a week out. Whatever alternative is adopted, it means a substantial lowering of the earning capacity and the wages taken home at the end of the week for millions of our fellow citizens this summer. What is worse is that even today, within four weeks of the beginning of the summer period, if my information is correct, industries as a whole—in particular important industries such as steel and cotton—do not really know what are to be the probable supplies on which they will be able to rely on 1st May. There was nothing in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman which gave us or the country any enlightenment at all.
In addition to that, supplies on this small scale are bound to affect adversely our exports. I cannot see industries which must be responsible for increasing exports to bring us up to the target of 140 per cent. at the end of the year, achieving that result. Above all, there is the complete cutting oft of the export of coal, which is bound to have repercussions on housing, because of the shortage of timber, and the absence of exchange for food, and for feeding stuffs, by means of which our own farmers could produce more food at home. This is bound to have a serious effect on the Minister of Health's housing programme, not merely through the delays which occurred through the bad weather, but by the reduction of fuel available for making cement, burning bricks, and the manufacture of various iron components required in a modern house.
It is going to inflict untold hardship on tens of millions of our fellow citizens, who travel every week, and on hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, who during the course of the summer want to go on hard-earned and long-postponed holidays. Last of all, but not least, it is going to inflict further hardship on the housewife who, as the Minister and the President of the Board of Trade admitted, has already had a cut of 30 per cent. in domestic fuel, and now during the last few weeks has had to put up with a cut in electricity. There is not one word of

thanks to her from the Minister of Fuel and Power, or from the Prime Minister in the statement he made the-other day. All she gets today is a threat that if she does not make further voluntary savings, the right hon. Gentleman will bring in a compulsory rationing scheme next winter.
Quite rightly, the hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Shurmer) talked about panic economy. One of the tragedies of the present situation is that the margin between adequate supplies and what we are going actually to get is so small in so many of these cases. Take the savings made as a result of the cut in railway traffic. I do not know what the actual figure is. The Prime Minister gave one figure, and the Minister of Transport gave another. One figure was 120,000 tons, and the other 250,000 tons. We should like to know what the actual figure is. But, whatever it is, it represents about three hours' production on one day by the miners of this country. The people who suffer untold inconvenience this summer had better realise that that inconvenience is due to the failure of the right hon. Gentleman to get the miners to work the three hours extra for one year. What does the domestic reduction of 2,500,000 tons represent? It represents six Saturday mornings in a year. If the miners worked for only six Saturday mornings in a year, we would not need the domestic cuts. The Parliamentary Secretary smiles, but it is not a smiling matter to the housewife.
The Minister admitted that the calculation made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) that the target for this summer was six million tons less than the output of last summer was right, and at the same time he gave some very illuminating information about what happened last year. He told us that last year, at a date when we were criticising the miners for absenteeism, they had actually come to him and said, "We have worked five days. We are not going to work another day, and, what is more, we want longer holidays." That was not what he told us last year, when defending absenteeism in the pits. He talked today about a better trend of production in the last few weeks. There certainly has been a slightly better trend of production in the last few weeks, compared with the weeks before, but it is not anything like what it was in 1941, and still less good than it was


in 1938. He said that he hoped to continue to get a total output at least as high as in recent weeks, but from what he said—because he coupled with it figures showing a steady increase in the total of men employed in the pits—he is evidently counting on increased numbers of men, not increased output per man-shift. If the right hon. Gentleman and his Parliamentary Secretary will take the trouble to read the economic White Paper, they will see there, the emphasis laid on the fact that this country can only be saved if we can get increased output per man year. The Prime Minister the other day said that the Coal Board were taking steps to get increased output per man—year from the men. There was no mention of that by the right hon. Gentleman in his speech today.

Mr. Murray: It is a fact, all the same.

Mr. Hudson: I was dealing with the right hon. Gentleman's speech, and I would point out to the hon. Member that it is still well below what it was in 1941, and still more below what it was in 1938.

Mr. Murray: It is rising very nicely.

Mr. Hudson: It is rising so nicely that we shall have six million tons less available this summer than we had last summer. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, in a speech the other day, said that coal output must grow from one year to another, that we have to consider this year as growing from 1946. It is an odd definition of "growing," to expect an output of six million tons less than that of the basic year from which the calculation is made.
The right hon. Gentleman then went on to confess, in what I think was in some ways the most ominous and serious part of his speech, that he did not know what was to happen as a result of the five-day week, and he was not certain that the five-day week, when it was introduced, would make good the loss of the Saturday morning shift. From such calculations as I have been able to make, I think that the situation is a good deal worse than that. According to the White Paper too million tons is the figure required during the six summer months. From that has to be taken to million tons for stock. That leaves go million tons. There are to be two weeks' holiday with pay this year—

Mr. Shinwell: One week's holiday with pay.

Mr. Hudson: That improves the position a little. That accounts for four million tons. The right hon. Gentleman admitted, in answer to questions during the Debate, that the miners themselves had estimated a loss of 18 million tons, representing Saturday morning shifts. A half of that, taking a six months' period, is nine million tons, which make a total of 23 million tons. That means that if these calculations are correct, and unless something quite unforeseen occurs in the way of increased output, instead of having 83 millions tons, the hitherto anticipated target, the country will be faced with the prospect of having only 78 million tons available for all purposes—five million tons less than the pessimistic target about which the right hon. Gentleman was talk ing today.
If these figures are correct, even the right hon. Gentleman's present distribution scheme will break down before the end of the six summer months, a very grim outlook. I think that the message that goes out from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman in the House today is that the consumer in this country and industry in this country are to go short for the next six months, probably for the next 12 months, in order that miners can take a five-day week instead of a 5½-day week, and in order that they make take longer holidays this year than they did last year. That is a fair summary of what the right hon. Gentleman said. We on these benches think that that is an appalling message to go out to the country from the Minister of Fuel and Power.
I do not think that it is unfair to say that a Prime Minister who had his hands perfectly free would have shifted, before now, a Minister of Fuel and Power who had made such a mess of the situation as the right hon. Gentleman has done. He might even have gone so far as to sack so inefficient a Minister. But he has not done so, and rumour, that lying jade, tells us why. But I believe that the trouble today is very largely that the right hon. Gentleman is making the wrong approach. I ventured to say it in the last Debate. I believe that he would be well advised to take the hint suggested today in a notable speech by the hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. J. Jones). I do not believe


that the miners of this country are so unpatriotic as the right hon. Gentleman today made them out to be. I believe that the miners of this country need to have brought home to them that in their hands lies the choice today. They can, by continuing production at the level which the right hon. Gentleman anticipates, inflict untold hardship on individuals, men, women and children, and on industry, and bring down our standard of living for the next five or ten years. It is not next year or the year after, but what is to happen this year, on which the standard of this people, for the next five or ten years, depends. That is what the miners can do if they continue as the right hon. Gentleman tells us they are going to do. But I believe that if the choice is put clearly before them, and an appeal is made to them as patriotic Englishmen, they will in this critical year, make that extra little bit of effort—I have shown it is not a big one that is needed—

Mr. Beswick: They are making it now.

Mr. Hudson: Not on a big enough scale—that extra bit of effort that will put this country on its feet and enable us to see round the corner. I am sorry to say that as long as the right hon. Gentleman is where he is I do not believe that that appeal will be made.

8.38 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Gaitskell): For the most part this has been a serious and restrained Debate. It is right that it should have been so, because the problem we are discussing is at once the most serious and most difficult which faces the Government and the country. That it is the most serious will, I think, be agreed by all, in view of the widespread repercussions which a shortage of coal produces on industry and on the domestic consumer. That it is the most difficult problem I maintain for these reasons: I know of no commodity the consumption of which it is more difficult to restrict without creating grave dangers, and I know of no commodity the production of which it is more difficult, in a short period, and quickly, to increase, except when there is heavy unemployment. That is the measure of the situation as I see it.
It is not surprising, in those circumstances, that most of the speeches which

have been. made have contained objections to one proposal or another, or general complaints about the situation, and few, if any, serious constructive suggestions. I am bound to say that I was disappointed in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden). I associate with him a certain statesmanlike quality. I had rather hoped that he would have something constructive to put forward. I was not disappointed with the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) because I did not expect anything. Seriously, although hon. Members opposite may say that it is not the business of the Opposition—I have heard the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Southport say this—to put forward constructive suggestions, it weakens any attack they may make upon the Government if they are not able to make suggestions.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: No.

Mr. Gaitskell: If the right hon. Gentleman does not think so, the country does.

Mr. Henry Strauss: Why should we relieve the hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Gaitskell: If hon. Gentlemen opposite want to go on record as saying that they have no constructive suggestions, that is another matter.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: I said that the hon. Gentleman would not accept them.

Mr. Gaitskell: And I said "serious constructive suggestions."
I turn now to the more specific issues of the Debate. Much of the discussion has turned on the figures given by the President of the Board of Trade and the Prime Minister. Attention has been drawn by several right hon. Gentlemen opposite to the fact that the President of the Board of Trade gave an estimate of 89 million tons as the probable production of open-cast and deep-mined coal during the summer, and pointed out that that was lower than the production in the corresponding period last year. My right hon. Friend dealt in some detail with that point and I would only say that estimating future production and consumption of coal is not an easy matter. It is particularly difficult when there is a change like the five-day week coming in at the very beginning of the period, on 1st May.

Mr. H. Strauss: Brought in.

Mr. Gaitskell: It is being brought in. It is, in these circumstances, obviously a matter of doubt, and we admit it, what precisely will be the rate of production in these months.
The difficulty in the situation is that if we are 10 per cent. wrong in our estimate, of course, it makes all the difference in the world. That is part of the coal dilemma. [Laughter.] It was part of it last year, and it was then a question of 2½ per cent. one way or the other. Hon. Members may laugh, but this is a perfectly serious point. If they were to try to work out these things themselves they would run into precisely the same difficulties. We may be wrong. I hope we are wrong. I think that this estimate is a particular cautious one. It is based on manpower figures which looked like being a good deal lower than they are. That is to say, it did not take into account the rather encouraging trends which have recently developed. As my right hon. Friend said, it is better to be conservative in these matters. If he was not conservative, what would the Opposition be saying? They would be only too pleased to say that he was being optimistic.
What can be done in these circumstances? I turn first to the consumption side and answer, in so doing, one or two questions put by hon. Members. My hon. Friend the Member for North Wembley (Mr. Hobson) asked a number of questions about domestic coal allowances. He complained that many people in London did not receive, the full allowance, as he called it Probably it will be known to most hon. Members that the 34 cwts. in the South of England, and the 50 cwts. in the North, are not allowances but maxima. They are the maximum amounts which may be obtained without a licence. There is no suggestion on our side, we freely agree, that we can provide for every household that full amount. There are many households in London which, quite frankly, do not need it. They consume gas and electricity and they have managed to do without the full amount. Then the hon. Gentleman complained that there was discrimination on the part of coal merchants. I have had a good deal to do with this. I have examined a great many cases. I consider this to be very rare indeed, but if the hon. Member has any evidence that merchants are discriminating against par-

ticular customers and giving more than they should do to others, will he, or any other hon. Member, please let me have that information and I shall be very glad to follow it up.
The hon. Member also suggested that we should ration house coal, with specific quantities. It is perfectly true, that, being a physical commodity sold by a seller to a buyer, that would be, administratively, not an impossible proposition. But, of course, the difficulty is in assessing what the ration of house coal should be. That cannot be done without taking into account gas and electricity consumption and all the other complications which arise in trying to devise a scheme for rationing gas and electricity. Finally, he referred to the question of sub-tenants. This is an old friend and I have had a great many letters from hon. Members on this topic. The hon. Member asked that all subtenants should be allowed to have separate registrations and should be given full allowances. Frankly, we have not got the coal to do that. We cannot do it. Supposing it was said that anybody who had a separate rental could claim separate registration, it would be possible for members of one family, in effect, to split themselves up in that way. Certainly, in the case of in-laws they would do that. It would be impossible to prevent abuses. If we had enough coal to enable us to supply everybody who managed to get a separate registration in this way, it would not matter, but the only effect of granting separate registration to sub-tenants now would be to reduce the amount available to other people.

Mr. Shurmer: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that this system does operate? It is in operation in many households in Birmingham.

Mr. Gaitskell: I am not quite sure what my hon. Friend means. It is true that the local fuel overseer may grant extra amounts to households with sub-tenants. In certain circumstances, sub-tenants are granted separate registration. What my hon. Friend the Member for North Wembley was asking was that all should be granted separate rations automatically. We cannot agree, to that. The hon. Lady the Member for Coatbridge (Mrs. Mann) mentioned the position of offices and hotels, and so on. I assure her most decidedly that they will be included in any plan that we may formulate. Indeed, as


she may be aware, discussions with representatives of the bodies concerned are now proceeding.
On the question of domestic consumption, I wish to refer to wood fuel. I agree that there is, in some parts of the country, nothing less than a racket in the sale of wood fuel. We have given a lot of attention to this, and have considered whether we could introduce an effective form of price control. We have not finally discarded the idea, but I want the House to know that it is an extremely difficult thing to do. It is difficult to do it because the costs of retailing wood fuel differ widely in different parts of the country. One can readily understand that. Transport costs are different and the extent of the area covered varies. More important is the difficulty of enforcement. Here we have a commodity which is not sold by weight in every case. It is not sold merely at so much per ton. It is sold by the barrow, by 'the load, by the sack, and in every conceivable way, by thousands of small merchants whom it would be practically impossible to control. Although it would not be out of the question for us to make a maximum price Order, I must tell my hon. Friends that if we were to make it, I will not say it would not be worth the paper that it was written on, but it would be extremely difficult to enforce.
We have not finally made up our minds however. We have been going into it with our regional officers and it may still be possible to do something. What we have done is to get the regional coal officers to agree maximum retail prices with the reputable merchants in the area, and if the hon. Gentleman will consult the Regional Coal Officer for the Birmingham region he will find out from whom he can buy wood fuel at a reasonable price and what that price is. We shall give more publicity to that than we have done.

Mr. E. P. Smith: On the matter of alternative fuel, is the hon. Gentleman aware that peat is being sold at the exorbitant price of 3d. per turf?

Mr. Gaitskell: I am not aware of that, but I will look into it: Reference was made by the hon. and learned Member for Brighton (Mr. Marlowe) to the issue of miners' coal. Perhaps the hon. and learned Member will do me the courtesy of listening to me. He suggested that

miners should give it up. I want to correct his figures. He said that if they gave up 25 per cent. it would produce 2,500,000 tons. That is not so. It would in fact produce precisely half that amount.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: More than that. Just under two million.

Mr. Gaitskell: My advice is to the contrary. The difficulty is quite simple. It is that the miners' free coal is bound up with wages agreements and does not apply in every part of the country. Some miners have to buy their coal like everybody else does. There will be wage negotiations between, the National Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers during the year and it may be that that will be considered. Here we are doing our best to attract people into the pits and making this and that concession to miners, to some of which I will refer later on. I am not at all sure it would be a wise move to take away something which the miners have already got. If any attempt were made to forbid miners to have this, it would lead to serious industrial dislocation.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: Do not hon. Members realise that that sort of argument is putting the miner in the wrong light in the country? The miner is getting on an average more coal than in 1938. [An HON. MEMBER: "Some miners."] Taken as a whole, more miners' coal is being sent to miners today than in 1938, and there are fewer miners. In this time of crisis when we are all short, miners are getting on an average more coal than in 1938. It is in the published statistics and has only got to be worked out.

Mr. Gaitskell: Is the right hon. Gentleman proposing that it should be prohibited?

Mr. R. S. Hudson: No; negotiated.

Mr. Gaitskell: It may be negotiated between the National Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers because it is a matter closely connected with wages.

Mr. T. J. Brooks: Do the Opposition believe that all miners are getting miners' coal? Are they aware that thousands and thousands of men have already sold a good deal of the coal back to the companies? The miner is actually taking less than during the war. The argument which has been put up is quite


wrong. Not 40 per cent. of the miners are getting this coal.

Mr. Gaitskell: On the question of consumption, several hon. Members, not only on the Opposition side but on our own benches, have said, "Please do not touch the domestic consumer in any way whatever." If our estimates of output prove unfortunately to be correct this summer, we shall be faced with a straightforward alternative, that every extra ton of coal used directly or indirectly by domestic consumers means so much less for industry. The President of the Board of Trade has already said that industry will only get two-thirds of its requirements. It would be easy and attractive for me to say that we will not touch the domestic consumers, that they need not bother to economise and that we will safeguard them; but I will not do that because the country must realise that it has a choice between using more gas and electricity in the home and using more in industry for employment. Although, for the very cogent reasons given by my right hon. Friend, the Government have rejected any full-scale rationing of gas and electricity, I must emphasise, as he did, the urgent necessity for a reduction in household consumption. He made it clear that we are not intending to cut the actual output, but there has been a considerable increase in gas and electricity consumption in the last year and it must be brought home to the people that they have this choice between using more at home and more at work.
I refer next to industrial allocations, but only to say that the question of allocations to industry is really a matter for the President of the Board of Trade.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: Where is he?

Mr. Gaitskell: I can say that the present Cripps scheme is under review. A good deal of experience has been gained in its working and I do not doubt that a further statement will be made on the subject in the very near future.

Mr. Eden: That is an important subject. Is this all we are to be told about the allocation to industry, that the Cripps scheme is under review and in due course we shall be told about it? Not a single industry knows the allocation it will get on 1st May next. We must have more about this.

Mr. Gaitskell: I have told the right hon. Gentleman that this is a matter for the President of the Board of Trade

Major Lloyd George: Why is he not here?

Mr. Gaitskell: Perhaps the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will allow me to finish. At the moment the present Cripps scheme is in operation and it will continue in operation until the revision is announced. As right hon. Gentlemen opposite know, in effect that scheme consists of a basic allowance with additions from the pool, the whole thing being flexible as it must be in accordance with the movement of production up and down week by week. If production goes up, of course all the percentages go up, and if it goes down, all the percentages go down.

Major Lloyd George: Week by week?

Mr. Gaitskell: Yes. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman knows this perfectly well, and knows that we are bound to have fluctuations week by week.

Major Lloyd George: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that industry can manage on an allocation of coal that varies as the coal production goes up or down each week, he had better think again.

Mr. Gaitskell: If production does not fluctuate from week to week, the deliveries will be the same. If production fluctuates from week to week, they will not be the same, which is what I was saying. I want to assure the hon. Member for Central Aberdeen (Mr. Spence), who raised the question of the paper mills, that the matter is very much in the mind of my right hon. Friend.
I now turn to production. We all agree that the emphasis must be laid on that. The opportunity for economy on the consumption side is very limited. Naturally, hon. Members are entitled to ask what we are doing about it. If I may, I will, first of all, take manpower.
It so happens that, since the beginning of the year, the manpower in the mines has risen for the first time for a long period from 692,400 to 705,074 on 22nd March, an increase of some 13,000 men. I may say that that figure has also been accompanied by an increase in the number of men effectively employed in the mines, which is very satisfactory We claim that this is not an accident, that it


is not just some chance which has given rise to this position. We think that a number of factors have contributed to it. In the first place, we think the five-day week has had something to do with it. One must consider what the repercussions on recruitment would be supposing one were to abandon the five-day week. We also think that the efforts made by the Minister of Labour have had a good deal to do with it.
For example, we now have an arrangement whereby underground miners are exempted from service for five years, though, of course, if they do not do a proper job in the pits, they can be called up. We have also an arrangement by which all men who have been in the Service for more than six months can be released under Class B, if they have had any previous underground experience and are prepared to work underground. We have also a very complete and thorough scheme for recruiting labour, not only in the coalmining districts, but outside. These measures have been operating, and have been gradually built up, in the last few months, and are now, I think, yielding their results. The sometimes despised instrument of propaganda has had a good deal to do with it, too, and much credit is due to those who have been putting it over.
Then, of course, there is the question of training, about which, I think, the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) asked a question. Here we are expanding the training capacity in the Ministry of Labour training centres nearly three times in order that we may take in the additional numbers of recruits that we are getting. I can also assure the hon. and gallant Member for Fylde (Colonel Lancaster), whose speech I am afraid I missed, although I was told about it, that, in effect, the new training regulations which were brought in on 1st January, and which, I agree, were rather stringent, are being temporarily relaxed in order that we may get the men as quickly as possible to the coal face where they are needed. As he knows, we are in correspondence on his particular problem, but I do not propose to trouble the House with details of that.
Again, there is the question of housing, which is obviously of immense importance, both in attracting people to the

pits and in providing accommodation for new recruits. This is being pursued with the utmost energy, and we have every hope that the target of 50,000 additional houses for miners will be reached within the next year. Some hon. Members have asked why we do not provide still more food for miners. I would like to tell the House what the position now is with regard to that matter, because I think it ought to be known. The following are the amounts of the various commodities which the miners receive in their canteens at the moment. Compared with ordinary restaurants, they receive three and a half times as much meat per man, one and a half times as much sugar, twice as much cheese, three times as much bread, and five times as much bacon. I strongly recommend that hon. Members who have not done so already should pay a visit to any neighbouring colliery and have a meal in the miners' canteen. They would find it extremely good. Hon. Members will, of course, be aware of the additional home rations which miners get in the way of meat, bread and cheese. Also, extra food supplies in the shape of unrationed commodities have been put into the mining areas. The time has come when we can say that we have done precisely what was recommended in many quarters, we have given the miners a relatively better position. They certainly are far better fed than other members of the community today.
Now I will turn briefly to the question of machinery. It is the Government's desire not only to secure recruitment to the mines but to see that the mines are properly equipped. I sometimes think that hon. Members on both sides of the House do not appreciate how very substantially the output of mining machinery has increased. The total output of cutters, conveyors and power loaders in 1945 was 2,110. In 1946, it was 2,915, an extension of something like 40 per cent. Now, as a direct result of the nationalisation of the industry, where we have a single overriding purchasing organisation, we have introduced a new scheme by which the necessary priorities will not only be accorded to the production of mining machinery but the whole business of that production will be progressed by the National Coal Board, in collaboration with the Ministry of Supply. I can assure the House that nothing whatever will be


allowed to stand in the way of the pits getting the machinery they need in the quickest possible time.
Precisely the same, or similar, arrangements are also to be applied to the generating plant programme which has been referred to, in which the Central Electricity Board will play the same sort of role as the National Coal Board, and it will be applied also to the coal-oil conversion programme as well. The fact is that unless we have a progressing organisation going right down to every sub-contractor to see that he gets the necessary priorities for the materials he needs for the particular components he is making, we do not get results. We are adopting in effect a wartime system here, in order to get as rapidly as possible the output of machinery needed for the mines, for the generating plant, and for the coal-oil conversion equipment.
My final word will be upon open-cast machinery, to which the right hon. and gallant Member for Pembroke (Major Lloyd George) referred. In June of last year, I think it was, we saw the representatives of the contractors, the people who actually do the open-cast mining work. We told them that we would make the dollars available if they would go to America and buy the equipment—if they could get it. It was in their interests that they should go and buy it. At the same time, we indicated that the programme would continue for at least another three years. I am bound to say that the result of that scheme was not very encouraging. It may not have been their fault and I am not anxious to place blame. They managed to purchase about 30 machines of a capacity of about 120 cubic yards, as compared with a capacity of about 900 cubic yards from the machines we have in operation.
Therefore we recently sent out a mission representing the Ministry of Works and ourselves, and I am glad to say that, as hon. Members will know from the newspapers, it has been extremely successful. In opencast machinery alone they purchased, or rather ordered, I am advised, 155 machines with a cubic yard capacity of 450, that is to say, 50 per cent. of our present capacity. I hasten to add, as the right hon. and gallant Member specifically asked me about it, that all this equipment will not arrive tomorrow. Delivery will be spread over the next two years. When we get it it should make a very

substantial difference to our prospects of increased opencast production. We may say that over these years we shall rise, at any rate to 15 million tons a year from the 10 millions which we bow have.
May I conclude with one or two more general observations? Reference has been made by various hon. Members to output per man-shift. In a previous Debate I have said quite a lot about it. Of course the National Coal Board are paying attention to this; they are concentrating on getting an increase of output per man-shift as swiftly as possible. I believe they can get considerable improvement there without the larger longer-term measures which we all know have got to be carried out in due course, anyway. But let us face it. Whether or not we get the output per man-shift we want, depends on the attitude of the miners, and unless we have the miners with us, unless they are prepared to do their best for the country, unless they feel sure they are getting a square deal, we shall not get it. I am bound to say that some of the speeches from right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the other side seemed to me to be still slightly reminiscent of the barrack square, slightly "school-roomy" in character. Really you cannot deal with the miners in this way, you will not get the output you want if you behave like that; this problem, I am perfectly certain, can only be dealt with in the way my right hon. Friend has always said it must be dealt with, by creating the right atmosphere in the pits. He is striving day after day and week after week to achieve that, and, in spite of the attacks which have been made—and of course any Minister of Fuel and Power, it does not matter whom he might have been, in this last year was bound to be subject to attacks—I can tell the House that there is no man in the country who has the miners more behind him than my right hon. Friend.
Nobody disputes the gravity of the situation. We know how vital this is, it is the major economic problem facing the country, and I think, in, these circumstances, we must ask not only that the miners should co-operate to the full—it is not so much a matter of toil and tears and sweat, it is a matter of the attitude—but that they should be ready to agree, perhaps, to give up customs which they have been used to for years, to agree to work in different places in the same pit, maybe even in certain cases to move from


one pit to another. It is a matter of agreeing to co-operate in every way with the Coal Board to secure the increased output which is absolutely essential. I personally am convinced that if it is put to them, as it has been put to them, that upon their efforts and upon their attitude depends not anybody's profits or income but the employment of their fellow workers, they will respond and give us the coal we want.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. William Whiteley): I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

BURMA (FAILURE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MACHINERY)

9.14 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for India (Mr. Arthur Henderson): I beg to move,
That this House approves the continuance in force of the Proclamation issued under Section 139 of the Government of Burma Act, 1935, by the Governor of Burma on 17th October, 1945, a copy of which Proclamation was presented on 22nd February, 1946.
The reason for this Motion is very straightforward. I think the House will recollect that under legislation passed in 1945 the Governor of Burma was authorised to establish an Executive Council and a Legislative Council to assist him in carrying out his special responsibilities. The Governor was authorised to do so by way of proclamation. Under Section 139 of the Government of Burma Act, 1935, a Proclamation remains in force for a period of only six months, unless it is continued by a Resolution passed by both Houses of Parliament. A Proclamation was, in fact, issued by the Governor in October, 1945. That was followed by Resolutions of Approval in April, 1946, and it is now necessary to continue the Order in Council by passing a Resolution which I am asking the House to do tonight.

9.16 p.m.

Mr. R. A. Butler: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has dismissed this matter in a very few words, which in itself is a mark of some value on his part as a Minister, but I think it is legitimate to explain that this question of extending this life of the Executive

Council and of the Legislative Council, unless I am very much mistaken, does entail problems of considerable importance for the future of Burma. For example, it raises the question of a definite time table for the reforms in Burma, because we should want to know whether the right hon. Gentleman will be coming back to this House on future occasions for the purpose of asking for an extension of this Order. I would like to ask whether he intends to have an extension, and also what sort of time table the Government have in mind in dealing with the Burma problem. These Orders which have to come to us are of great importance. We cannot let them by without at least a query, and, in view of the situation in Burma, I think we are entitled to ask that sort of question.
As we all know, Burma has suffered, perhaps more than any other part of the British Commonwealth in the war. It has suffered from extensive damage, and the damage is such that it will take a long time to repair. In the midst of this damage, we are—perhaps many hon. Members will think rightly—pursuing a policy of developing self-governing institutions, but the very difficulties of Burma make this course very hazardous and one which we should examine most carefully. Therefore, when the right hon. Gentleman asks for an extension of this method of providing for the government of Burma, for which he asked in April, 1946, and for which he may well ask again six months hence, it is legitimate for us to ask what the time table is, whether we are likely to have a similar request again in six months' time, and whether he can give us any further information on these points.

9.19 p.m.

Mr. A. Henderson: So far as the last question is concerned, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that there will not be such a request in six months' time because, as he will remember, the Motion that is now before the House would authorise the continuance of these powers for a period of 12 months. Of course, the total period during which this Proclamation is operative is the maximum of three years from the original date.

Mr. Butler: What would that date be?

Mr. Henderson: It would be October, 1948. As regards information as to a possible time table, I would remind the


right hon. Gentleman that under the terms of the agreement which was arrived at in London in January of this year, it was provided that during the period of transition the government of Burma will be carried on as at present, under the special powers o Section 139 of the Act of 1935, and the Government of Burma (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1945, together with any Orders in Council made there-under.
The main action that has been taken, as the right hon. Gentleman well knows, was the Proclamation issued in December, 1942, just prior to the invasion of Burma by the Japanese. That is the constitutional basis upon which the Governor of Burma operates today, together, of course, with the various Orders in Council and Proclamations that have been made. All I can say with regard to the time-table is, that the date upon which we would hope to cease coming to this House for authority to have these Proclamations confirmed, and to ask for approval of Orders in Council, will depend upon the tempo of the work of the constitutional Constituent Assembly, which will meet soon, after the Elections in Burma, which, as the right hon. Gentleman again knows, are to take place in a few days', time. I do not think he would expect me to be able to give any more specific information until we see how the work of the Constituent Assembly makes progress.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved:
That this House approves the continuance in force of the Proclamation issued under Section 139 of the Government of Burma Act, 1935, by the Governor of Burma on 17th October, 1945, a copy of which Proclamation was presented on 22nd February 1946.

Orders of the Day — TREATIES OF PEACE (ITALY, ROUMANIA, BULGARIA, HUNGARY AND FINLAND) [Money]

Resolution reported:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for carrying into effect Treaties of Peace between His Majesty and certain other Powers, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of the expenses of any Minister

incurred in carrying out the Treaties specified in the said Act of the present Session.

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — TREATIES OF PEACE (ITALY, ROUMANIA, BULGARIA, HUNGARY AND FINLAND) BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

CLAUSE 1.—(Power of His Majesty to give effect to Peace Treaties.)

The Chairman: Mr. Butler.

9.23 p.m.

Mr. Pickthorn: Could I ask, Major Milner, is it not your intention to call the first Amendment on the Order Paper—in page 1, line 18, to leave out "appear to him to be," and to insert "are"?

The Chairman: I have not selected the hon. Member's Amendment, which appears to me to be merely a matter of drafting. He can deal with it when we discuss the Clause as a whole, if he wishes.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I beg to move, in page 2, line 5, to leave out Subsections (3) to (5), and to insert:
(3) No Order in Council shall be made under this Act unless, after copies of the draft thereof have been laid before Parliament, each House presents an Address to His Majesty praying that the Order may be made.
I certainly hope my hon. Friend the senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) will deal with his point on the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." I hope it will then be found that that point is one of very considerable substance, to which he alone can do adequate justice. Therefore, I will not—indeed, I do not think I would be in Order—refer to those matters here.
The Amendment I have moved is designed to substitute for the negative procedure as suggested in this Bill, the affirmative procedure, under which we consider these matters would be better safeguarded than they can be in the terms suggested in the Bill as it is before us. We have on many occasions, in the course of legislation in this Committee, recommended the use of the affirmative Order rather than the negative Order. I think this is a peculiarly appropriate occasion


upon which to stress the need for the affirmative procedure. I realise that the Foreign Office are not used to legislation, and, therefore, I sympathise with the Minister of State, who is very green in these matters, and is not used to the rough and tumble of the ordinary legislative procedure of the Committee. I know that when I was in his position I had no Bills with which to deal.
But I must remind him that he is here coming to the common ground which is familiar to all of us who take part in the ordinary legislative processes of the House. He will realise that one of the most important points, to which we attach importance on this side of the Committee, is that matters in the House should have the chance of proper ventilation. I feel sure that if he will consult with the Home Secretary, who, I see, wisely has been brought in to sit beside him, as well as his other right hon. Friend, he will get from them sufficient encouragement to give way to the opinion of the Opposition on this most important point. They are well versed in the attitude of the Opposition in these matters, and realise the importance we attach to them.
The point of our Amendment is this. Under this Bill it is possible for His Majesty to make as many Orders in Council as he may feel inclined to make. I will leave that point for the hon. Gentleman the senior Burgess for Cambridge University to develop. But the fact is that the explanations given by the right hon. Gentleman in the course of the Second Reading of the Bill have not completely satisfied us. He designated certain matter—very technical matters on which he thought that Orders will be necessary; and he felt, on this occasion, that, by designating those matters, he had satisfied us, and allayed our apprehension. By a process of elimination, his acute mind attempted, on that occasion, so to distract our attention that he indictated a series of Orders, which he regarded as not so essential as we should regard them; and, by designating a list of such Orders, he hoped, thereby, to distract our attention from the procedure laid down in this Clause.
I do not feel satisfied that the Minister has realised that in the immense range of the Orders set out in the Treaties we have before us there may be many im-

portant matters, such as those dealing with foreign nationals' property in this country, and other matters. These will involve Orders of considerable importance. We do not feel that that process of elimination, distinguishing Orders which are unimportant from Orders which are important, is sufficient justification for retaining the negative procedure. It must be well known to all Members of this Committee attending here tonight that the affirmative procedure is very much more effective than the negative procedure. The affirmative procedure demands, on the part of both Houses of Parliament, a positive act. It does not demand the procedure laid down here, on which an Order may simply lie for so many days, and, if nobody takes any positive action, then it has the force of law. Therefore, the positive procedure is much more important than the negative procedure. Although we may sit up late at night, and move Prayers at late hours, as we try to do with great assiduity in the House, we cannot, under the negative procedure, get as much value as we can get out of the affirmative procedure. The affirmative procedure is much more disturbing to the Government, because by it they cannot get the Orders without an affirmative Resolution by both Houses. Therefore, it is always natural for the Government to avoid the affirmative procedure.
But tonight I may give the right hon. Gentleman a little of my own experience in the important matter of the Government of India Act, 1935. As matters in that Measure were of Imperial interest, and come second only to those matters of world interest with which the right hon. Gentleman deals, we were ready to adopt the affirmative procedure by Order in Council, rather than the negative. I think it is a very bad mark against any Government that they would prefer to lay an Order on the Table of the House, in the hope that that Order will get through without any undue trouble—unless hon. Friends of mine on this side of the Committee raised the matter at a late hour, and were swamped by the overwhelming vote from the Government side—rather than adopt the alternative method of procedure. I, therefore, hope that the Government, on this occasion, and on such an important matter as Treaties of Peace, and on one of the rare occasions when the Foreign Office comes to the House of Commons with proposals for legislation, will take the sense


of the Committee, which I am sure is present tonight, that an affirmative act is necessary in matters dealing with foreign policy rather than a negative act; and that they will, therefore, accept our Amendment in the spirit in which I move it.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Pickthorn: I hope I may be allowed to refer, in passing, perhaps, to the Amendment which has not been called, without prejudice to my right, if I should think it necessary, to say something about it on the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Chairman: Quite clearly, the hon. Member must confine himself to the particular Amendment under discussion.

Mr. Pickthorn: I quite understand that the Debate is about the second Amendment. What I was asking was that I might be allowed to refer to the object of the first Amendment which has not been called, because I think the argument on this Amendment is affected by what was desired there, whether or not the exact proposal for meeting that desire be now in Order. I hope I make myself clear, and I would, in any case, be very short on that point, and if you pull me up again, Major Milner, there is an end of it, of course.
The right hon. Gentleman the Minister told us, when debating this on Second Reading, when I think he was very fair and candid with us, that he could assure us that he could not imagine the Government not taking care, at the worst, that there should be full opportunity for Debate on any of these Orders of a substantial kind; that is not exact, but I am not misrepresenting him. I think that is what he said, and hon. Members will find the words in column 1597 of HANSARD. I would ask him to consider now whether really it is not possible to go a little further and give us the positive procedure, which is the official and clear and binding way of making sure that there is opportunity for full discussion. I took him the other day to mean by full discussion—that if a matter was of real importance, the Government would not leave it to an 11 o'clock Prayer, but would take care that we had a full chance at a proper time.
The way to make that position surer would be by giving us this positive procedure, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider carefully whether there

is not an advantage in the positive procedure, even from the point of view of the Foreign Office itself. Either the negative procedure is always futile in connection with matters of this sort, in which case I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would not recommend the Committee to accept the negative procedure, or we can leave that hypothesis, and upon the alternative hypothesis, that the negative procedure may sometimes be effective, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider how very bad a result that would have from. the office point of view; we imagine that under this Statute, when it becomes a Statute, an Order in Council has been issued with legislative effect which affects matters of great importance both to our nationals and to foreigners; on the 39th Parliamentary day after that has been issued, there is a Prayer against it, and, upon my hypothesis, because the Committee will remember that we are assuming that, on this occasion, the negative procedure is going to be effective and acceptable, upon my hypothesis, the Prayer is successful.
Now surely the Foreign Office then will be in a much worse position with regard to both its own nationals and to foreigners; some legislative effect has been had, has been running for 39 days and indeed all that—all that, of course, that has happened—will continue valid; but now those rules are clearly shown to have been not what Parliament desired, and new rules will have to be issued instead. I hope I am making the point plain and, if the point is plain, I should have thought that whatever administrative inconvenience there may be for the Foreign Office in having to bring these Orders—and there will not be very many of them, I suppose they would almost wholly run, with slight amendment, in the form that was used on the previous occasion and we know that they are already in draft; I should have thought really it would not have been administratively very inconvenient for the Foreign Office to bring those Orders before us for positive validation, and then it would know, and we should know, that we were going to have full opportunity of Debate, and the Foreign Office would know that when it got its validation, there it was, and there was no chance of being challenged, 10, 20, 30 or 39 days later. So I do not think that what we are asking is merely being asked in the interests of the House of Commons;


I think that even from the Foreign Office point of view, we may ask for it to be considered whether that would not be an improvement.
Another of the assurances the right hon. Gentleman gave us the other day was that we could be certain that His Majesty's Government would not under this Bill seek unnecessary powers, would not seek for power to do something by issuing an Order in Council when they could have already done it under the bare prerogative. I think, again, I am fairly expressing the sense of what he said. Now, on this point, too, it seems to me that we should be safer with the positive procedure. I do not for a moment suspect the right hon. Gentleman himself or his right hon. Friend of any intention to break away from that promise; or even, indeed, of any temptation to break away from that promise. It seems to me that when the House of Commons is giving Government the widest and most unchallengeable powers of delegated legislation—because that is what this formula gives—unless it be amended, and the way I was trying to amend it has not been made possible this evening—unless there is some such amendment, we are giving the widest possible powers of delegated legislation here. There can be no challenge at all. If an Order in Council says that something is designed for the purposes of these treaties, then no court can challenge that, however much in the eye of commonsense it might seem designed for something quite different. The only possible challenge, if I am right in this, would be the Prayer that the Order in Council should be withdrawn, and that would clearly have immense inconvenience. We all know that in our internal affairs, to get an Order withdrawn after property rights have shifted and changed under it, is immensely difficult, so that however much an Opposition may want it done, it can hardly hope that it will get a Government to consent.
But where what is involved is not only property rights but relations with other nationals and with foreign States, clearly it is ever so much more difficult again—three or four or five times as difficult—and therefore, the argument, I think, is proportionately strengthened for the positive procedure in order not only that we should be sure that Ministers are not doing things under this which, though techni-

cally within the powers of the Act, are ultra vires of what the House expected; we ought to be sure not only that Ministers have that good intention in their minds, but that on each of the occasions—and there will not be very many occasions of that sort—the House should have an opportunity of explanation being made to it of what is being done, of why it is being done, and of being clear that powers are not being taken unnecessarily, and that powers are not being taken to do things not really strictly connected with the enforcement of these treaties.
Those seem to me to be the arguments, and I do not want to say any more except one thing which sounds rather unfriendly, but I do not mean it in the least unfriendly to the right hon. Gentleman himself or, particularly for this one time, to the Government. I think that on the matter like this we ought to have had the opportunity of hearing the Attorney-General. There are difficult and technical matters, and I could have shown that my Amendment is not a matter of drafting, but a point of substance, and the sort of point we might have expected we would debate tonight. Another thing I hope I may say without being over querulous is that we should make certain that if the right hon. Gentleman gives us assurances tonight, he will now fortify himself, as he could not the other evening, with Cabinet assurances, which would mean the approval of the Prime Minister or Foreign Secretary or anyone else. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would be the last to remain in office if his assurances were not wholly bound. I should have thought that when the Foreign Secretary was not here the Prime Minister, or a deputy of his, ought to be here to make quite clear what the assurance is, and how effective it is.

The Minister of State (Mr. McNeil): I would not like to interrupt the harmony which is possessing the Committee tonight, nor to be ungrateful for the very complimentary things which have been said. Perhaps I might risk going slightly out of Order in response to that attitude by saying that on the Second Reading the hon. Member the senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) asked if I was quite sure when I said something like this, that we were following a precedent which the 1919 Act had been following. I did not mean simply that we were following the precedent set


by the 1919 Act. I am most careful of anyone's reputation, and particularly careful of such a meritorious academic one like that of the hon. Gentleman, and I therefore wish to say to the Committee that, despite, as the hon. Gentleman may be assured, the most careful search by my officers, and some supplementary search by myself, I am unable to sustain the argument I offered. In other words, we are here following the precedent set by the 1919 Act. I hope I am not being seemingly ungrateful. I want to be most generous in my statement. I think it would be inadvisable to say anything more than that careful phrase.
The right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) did suggest that anyone from the Foreign Office was a rather precious flower quite unused to the hurly burly of these exchanges. It is a subject on which he should be an authority, because he graduated from that school himself. Moreover, he cited two of my colleagues, the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Home Secretary, in support of his argument. I should like to tell the Committee, having had a hurried conference with the Home Secretary, that he does not advise me to accept the advice offered by the right hon. Gentleman. He said he is on very strong grounds in offering me that advice because he was schooled to adopt that attitude while the junior of the right hon. Gentleman as Minister of Education. I should hardly dare to depart from advice so precariously exacted from tile right hon. Gentleman.
There are two main reasons why we resist this Amendment. The first is not really very disturbing to the Foreign Office. I do not feel there would be much administrative upset in a positive affirmation. But, of course, the right hon. Gentleman who has to be concerned with the Business of the House pointed out to me that the affirmative machinery is apt to consume a little more time than the negative machinery, and that the Business of the House is fairly crowded. I have also noted that views about the importance of the affirmative and negative Motion are apt to change, dependent on which side of the House one is.

Mr. Pickthorn: Only on the Front Bench.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. McNeil: I am quite prepared to accept the assurance of the hon. Gentle-

man the senior Burgess for Cambridge University that he is concerned with nothing but the care of the public. I therefore say that, as far as we can see, any Orders in Council coming under this Measure would be technical orders, and, I hope, non-controversial ones dealing in the main with very small groups of people and with very limited areas of action. Perhaps I might say that the right hon. Gentleman, in making this case, which I know is a view he holds most sincerely, said there could be no challenge at all either in the House except by prayer, or outside. He seemed to me to make a statement rather like that on Second Reading, and I have reinforced myself with an opinion which perhaps I may be permitted to read carefully.
I am told that it is not strictly correct to say that the formula we are adopting prevents a court from considering whether an order is ultra vires. It is pointed out to me that this is precisely what the court was doing in the case to which the hon. Gentleman drew our attention. The court, on that occasion, came to the conclusion, as I am told they would in connection with this Bill; that anything which appeared to the subordinate legislative authority to be for the purpose stated in the Act, was intra vires, but it would never prevent anyone going to the court to ask the court whether the instrument was ultra vires. I am offering, that as a most careful opinion, from the best advice available to me. I think also that I can offer some further slight protection.. I am authorised to say, on behalf of the Government, that if an order, in the opinion of the Opposition, or of responsible elements of the Opposition, seemed likely to effect a substantial change in existing law—

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me who the responsible Members of the Opposition are?

Mr. McNeil: I should think that that is a subject on which the hon. and gallant Member might have some diffidence himself. Hon. Gentlemen will appreciate what I mean. On any instrument substantially affecting existing British law, His Majesty's Government will be prepared to provide time for adequate debate. I hope that in view of that assurance the right hon. Gentleman may find himself in the position to withdraw his Amendment.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I find that the right hon. Gentleman is as reasonable as he was in the course of the Second Reading. He has, in fact, in perhaps more precise terms, repeated the assurance he gave us in general terms on Second Reading. I wish to pursue this matter rather more closely. When he says that time will be given for discussion on any matter which, in fact, affects, to paraphrase what he said, our municipal law, I want to know what he means, because in the earlier part of his speech he was using as an argument that the Government had not time to provide for discussion of this in this House. To which views are we to listen? To the views of the Leader of the House, whom we hope to see back here before long, or to those of the acting Leader of the House? Or are we to listen to the genuine voice of the Foreign Office as put by the right hon. Gentleman in the latter part of his speech? Which voice would prevail? If it is to be the voice of the Leader of the House, or the acting Leader of the House, we know perfectly well that we shall not be given time to discuss these matters properly. We shall be crowded out and even the Foreign Office will not be able to stand up against the modern dictator of Parliament. Therefore, we do not accept the assurance as being a valid one.
If the right hon. Gentleman could give us some indication of actual subjects which he has in mind, which might have to be legislated upon by Order, then I think we should know where we were, because when these subjects came forward we would be able to nail them and demand from the Leader of the House time to discuss them. I must emphasise the fact that we on this side of the Committee are being steam-rollered in this Parliament, in a manner in which no Opposition has been steam-rollered in the history of Parliament. It is not our mood to accept this situation any longer. It is an abuse of the whole tradition of Parliament. There are Clauses and Schedules in Bills which have been guillotined—

The Chairman: The right hon. Gentleman appreciates that he is going far from the Amendment under discussion.

Mr. Butler: I do not want to discuss the Clauses or the Schedules in the Transport Bill or the other Bill, which have been guillotined without any discussion whatever, but I want to use as an argu-

ment the fact that this Government are abusing the time of Parliament and, however honourably the Minister of State may be speaking on behalf of the Foreign Office, he must realise that he is speaking on behalf of a Government currency which has been debased. We cannot on this side of the Committee accept assurances from the Government that time will be given when we know that, time after time, we are steam-rollered, and given no opportunity of discussing proper questions.
Therefore, unless the right hon. Gentleman can give us some indication of the sort of subjects for which time will be found, I think he will find as an honest man, as he expressed in his Second Reading speech, that there is no value in his assurance in the present mood of his own Government. There may be value in it in his own mind, but there is no value in the light of the procedure which the Government have seen fit to adopt and in their method of abusing Parliamentary procedure and taking up Parliamentary time. Therefore, I must ask him in all good faith for a rather better explanation. I want to ask him whether he can give us an assurance on behalf of the Leader of the House that, if these matters come up, we shall have genuine time in which to discuss them.

Mr. McNeil: I must really protest against such assertions as have been made against my right hon. Friends. Indeed, if I were not more concerned with something much more important than the sensitivities of the Opposition—that is, the position of the public at large—I would withdraw the offer which I am authorised to make on behalf of the Government. However, this Government is as concerned as any Government, and I do not think that I need to add or subtract anything from what I have already offered. If an Order looks like affecting existing English law in a substantial fashion, then the Government are prepared to find time, but I deprecate the language of the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Pickthorn: I am sorry to take up three or four minutes more. I do not for a moment want to make this affair any more controversial than it is; nor do I want to pretend that there is—though none of us can foresee this—any great amount of substantial business to come from this, but it is a matter of great public


importance. The thing is both a national matter and a House of Commons matter, quite apart from leftish or rightish feelings or anything of that sort. I would, therefore, hope that I might say, without trying to make a party point, that this is precisely the sort of subject on which we ought to have the Attorney-General and the Prime Minister or the Leader of the House. I say that not in the least by way of criticism of the right hon. Gentleman now before us.
I think it is really fair to say that. The second thing which I think it is fair to add is that really on this sort of point the right hon. Gentleman made a slight error—I do not suggest an error of wickedness, so to speak, but a slight error of judgment—in using at this particular point the argument about Parliamentary pressure. The business of His Majesty's Government is to govern the country to enforce the law and to arrange the relations of this country with foreign Powers. [Interruption.] Not every hon. Member on the opposite side of the Committee thought so yesterday, and I am glad to know that almost everybody here tonight does. That is the business of His Majesty's Government, and everything else must be done in the time that can be saved from that. It should not be said of this business of international affairs and of taking new legislative powers to deal with international affairs that it can only be done in the time spared from domestic legislation. It must be the other way round. Without any attempt to make a party point, unless any party claiming to be one of the two great parties in this State learns that lesson neither democracy nor Parliamentary government can survive in this country.

Mr. R. A. Butler: The right hon. Gentleman complained of my language. I think it a very good thing that the Committee should realise how deeply we feel and that the right hon. Gentleman should realise how deeply we feel the abuse of Parliamentary procedure which is going on at the present time. I took care to point out that we do not attach any responsibility for that to the right hon. Gentleman himself or his Department. if the right hon. Gentleman would be good enough to repeat his assurance that any matter affecting the municipal law of this country will be brought before Parliament, and given Parliamentary time for discussion if any such Orders arise under this

Bill, all we can say is that we shall take the right hon. Gentleman at his word and take every opportunity to discuss such matters in the time which the Government have now undertaken to afford. I hope that on that understanding we need not press the Amendment we have on the Paper.

Mr. McNeil: I should not like any mistake to arise in the matter. I am not in a position to say "any Order or instrument affecting municipal law." I cannot add anything to what I have twice stated. If I say any Order which seems in the opinion of the Opposition, or a responsible element in the Opposition, substantially to affect existing British law—

Mr. Butler: Municipal law.

Mr. McNeil: Let us simply say "any change in municipal law"—we might find ourselves very far extended. I think my offer was fairly made. I do not wish to add to it. I hope there will be no mistake about it or any abuse of it. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would not seek to do that.

Mr. Butler: I will only say, Let there be no confusion in the minds of the Committee on the words "municipal law" which I obviously used in the classical sense of meaning the law of this country. The only modification the right hon. Gentleman has indicated from that Box is the word "substantial." We ought to have the opportunity of considering, as the Opposition, any change in British law—to use a simpler term—which is likely to be affected by Orders made under these Treaties. If we could accept that, I would want to be sure that we should have adequate notice and that the Opposition would have an adequate opportunity, through the usual channels, of making representations. If that is the case, we should at least have obtained some concession from the Government tonight. I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman has not been able to persuade his right hon. Friend to give us the affirmative Order. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

10.0 p.m.

Mr. Pickthorn: This is not an issue which requires me to say very much more,


but it is appropriate to say a few sentences on what I understood to be the effect of this Clause as it is and as it might have been amended. I fully admit to the Committee that I have no great confidence in my understanding of the matter, and I am not setting up to explain it to anybody, but the right hon. Gentleman himself was careful to be equally undogmatic when we discussed it on the Second Reading and I dare say he is now. That is precisely why I thought it would be an advantage if we had the King's principal legal adviser here to put us right. The point I was trying to make was that I think the words as they stand would seem to put it out of any discussion under Subsection (1) whether the Order in Council in question was, or was not, relevant to the enforcement of the Treaties. What I have been advised by competent, though, no doubt, fallible legal authority, was that if we had said, "such things as are," or perhaps better still, "such things as shall be," instead of "such things as appear," we should thereby have widened the opportunity of making any such possible ambiguity impossible.
No private hon. Member can be sure in such a matter that he is wholly right, still less that his unaided intelligence has drafted the right form of words, but I should like the right hon. Gentleman to reassure us, that, whether or not we were mistaken about the effects of the words we suggested, at any rate, we were mistaken about the effects of the words as they stood, and that he is really quite sure that the effect of the words as printed are what he told us just now. If he really is quite certain that it is challengeable whether an Order in Council under this Statute is necessary for carrying out the said treaties, and if he now assures us that the lawyers are certain that those words leave that question justiciable, which is what I understood him to say a quarter of an hour ago, I am willing to Jet this Clause go, and am quite satisfied.

Mr. McNeil: I must, of course, be very careful. I do not need to retract from what I have already said because I have, as most healthy British people have, a very zealous care for the rights of the individual and what I said relating to the ability to ask the court to decide whether or not an Order was ultra vires, is, on the best advice available to me, accurate. It is

true that if we adopted the form offered by the hon. Gentleman the senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) just now, we would annul the application of such an Order. In the opinion of legal advisers available to me in dealing with such technical matters as we have to deal with inside this Bill, it would be unduly cryptic so to word the Subsection. It would be better to stick to the phrase upon which a court has already given judgment under the 1919 Act. The hon. Gentleman referred on Second Reading to one of the cases brought under that Act. There has been at least one other case on substantially the same ground, which did slightly narrow the decision, and I am told, in that sense, that the Bill which we have moved has slightly less power than the 1919 Act. But it would be inappropriate to narrow the scope of the Bill by omitting the words suggested, and we must adhere to the drafting of the Bill.

Mr. Pickthorn: I wonder whether in any way within the Rules of Order I could ask the right hon. Gentleman how to arrive at the conclusion that my Amendment was a drafting Amendment.

Mr. R. A. Butler: Can the right hon. Gentleman, with whose position in this matter we sympathise, give us any particulars of the second case under the Act of 1919? His sources of information are very much more voluminous than ours are, and it would interest the Committee very much to hear under which law it was ruled that matters affecting municipal law could be raised in the courts in respect of Orders of this kind. We do not want him to go into details, but to reply to the point put by the senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn).

Mr. McNeil: I did not offer to prove that the judgment of the court was competent in such a case. I quoted from a legal opinion offered to me to show that it was competent for any subject to ask a court to decide whether an Order was in fact ultra vires or not. The particular case, to which I referred—I an sorry that I cannot give the dates—was one in which the use was being debated of the words to which the hon. Gentleman has directed our attention. The court decided that the Act must read as if the words
appear to him necessary",
were in it. I am sorry if I misled the right hon. Gentleman into thinking that. I was


suggesting I was offering the judgment of a court, as to whether an order was ultra vires or not.

Mr. Butler: The right hon. Gentleman will nevertheless be in a position to give an opinion, upon the advice which is available to him, whether it is possible for a citizen aggrieved under an Order, made in pursuance of this Bill—a Bill to implement certain Treaties of peace—to obtain justice in the courts, provided the wording remains as in Clause 1 (1). If that is the advice given to the hon. Gentleman it would be considerable consolation to us on this side of the Committee.

Mr. McNeil: I most carefully quoted the advice on that point and I do not want to repeat it. I am sure hon. Gentlemen opposite do not wish me to do so. I am also sure that it is not particularly correct to say that the formula we are using prevents a court from considering whether an Order is ultra vires.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will carry that explanation a little further. He has told the Committee that a court would be competent under the Clause to consider whether an Order was ultra vires or not. Can he say whether, if one of His Majesty's Secretaries of State put in an affidavit that in his opinion the Order was necessary for the purposes of the Measure, it would then be possible for the court to go behind that affidavit and inquire into the genuineness of the decision?

Mr. McNeil: I am quite certain that the hon. Member who has just asked me a question would not earn the salary he does if he really needed an opinion from me on that point.

Mr. R. A. Butler: We now see the benefit of having a Solicitor-General. I would ask him whether he can give us his opinion on these important points. I do not wish to rehearse the argument in front of the Solicitor-General. I am sure he has already been informed of it by the right hon. Gentleman. Can we prevail upon the Solicitor-General to give us his advice, in support of his right hon. Friend?

The Solicitor-General (Sir Frank Soskice): I will intervene extremely briefly, if I may, being comparatively unfamiliar with the argument. Hon.

Gentlemen opposite probably know the case ex parte Bayer, which was decided in 1941, and turned upon the wording in a Statute, very similar to the wording the Committee in now considering. It was decided that what the court could do was to inquire into no more than this—whether it did in point of fact appear expedient to an authority which has power to make an Order, to make that Order. In effect, of course, that means that the courts cannot go beyond that. It really means that they cannot decide an order to be ultra vires provided it is shown, on affidavit if necessary or however else it may appear, that it did appear expedient to the order-making authority.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I think the learned Solicitor-General has now confirmed what I put to the right hon. Gentleman, that although a court can go into the matter, if the applicant is met by an affidavit of one of His Majesty's Ministers to the effect that it did appear expedient, it cannot go any further. There is really no protection, because an affidavit from a Government Department is a complete bar to any public inquiry.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Preamble agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

10.12 p.m.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I do not wish to detain the House, but I do wish to draw attention to the fact that in 1919 these issues, which have been regarded as being rather a nuisance because we on this side of the House have raised them, were discussed at considerable length. They are issues of supreme constitutional importance, and I must honestly confess that I do not consider they have been satisfactorily resolved in the course of the discussion of this Bill this evening. This is the Third Reading of the Bill, and it is legitimate to consider any issues arising within the scope of the Bill. I do not wish for a moment to refer to the Foreign Office questions upon which I always find


myself in such considerable agreement with the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. chief, but I do consider that the constitutional issues raised in this Bill are not so satisfactorily treated as some of the Foreign Office matters which we have discussed. To many of us, it appears to have been left open as to whether the ordinary subject of this country, the ordinary citizen, can be aggrieved by not having proper appeal to the courts as a result of the passage of this Bill.
I think the other issue that has been left open is whether the ordinary Members of Parliament, and I do not refer to the submissive Members on those benches over there who are ready to accept almost anything from their own Government, but to hon. Members on this side of the House, will have adequate opportunity on normal occasions of using the affirmative procedure which we want to use. I do not think it has been left in a satisfactory sense. I have no desire to add to the discussion, or to the acerbity of our exchanges, but I do think that when the Foreign Office comes down to the House with a Bill which appears to them to be simple, they will find that there are many deep issues which remain as yet unresolved, although the Bill is about to achieve its full and complete passage through this Chamber. There are matters in this Bill which, to all lovers of constitutional propriety, are not satisfactory. I do not think we ought to let the Bill have its Third Reading without mentioning them, although we are powerless do any more.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. McNeil: As far as I and the Government are concerned, no one objects to the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues bringing forward points about which we must all be properly very jealous. My only objection was to the language which the right hon. Gentleman used. I do not think he strengthened his case, nor do I think it was up to his normal stature, to seek such methods to uphold his argument. I certainly do not object to the right hon. Gentleman bringing forward those points, although I am conscious of my inability to deal with such important constitutional points.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — NAVAL FORCES (ENFORCEMENT OF MAINTENANCE LIABILITIES) BILL

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 69.

[Mr. HUBERT BEAUMONT in the Chair]

CLAUSE 1.—(Deductions from pay in respect of liabilities for maintenance. etc.)

10.17 p.m.

Major Bruce: I beg to move, in page 1, line 11, after "pay," to insert "and pensions."
Perhaps it will be for the convenience of the Committee if at the same time I deal with my next Amendment, in line 12, and also with my Amendment in line 21. My purpose in moving this Amendment is very limited. It is devised to afford some protection to the wives and children, whether legitimate or illegitimate, of naval personnel who have deserted their dependants and placed themselves beyond the reach of British law. There is a further limitation to the purpose, in that it is applicable only when those personnel who have placed themselves beyond the reach of British legal process are themselves receiving payments from the British Treasury by way of pension or retired pay in respect of services they have previously rendered to the country. The effect of the first two Amendments in my name gives the Admiralty the power to make deductions from retired pay and pensions of ex-naval personnel for the maintenance of wives and children, whether legitimate or illegitimate, of the persons concerned. The third Amendment ensures that this power is limited to those cases where the naval personnel concerned are, in fact, outside the range of British legal process, both actually at that time and for the period during which they are outside the scope of British legal process. That is the broad purpose of the Amendments.
It may be said that this matter affects a very limited number of people indeed. I would imagine that the number of naval personnel in this country, whether officers or ratings, who have been regulars and are in receipt of pensions from the British Treasury, and who have nevertheless deserted their wives and children and left them chargeable to public funds, is very small indeed. Therefore, I cannot pretend that the Amendments have any large-


scale social effect. But that is all the more reason why we should consider the question very carefully in Committee, because it is one of the characteristics of the British House of Commons that, from time to time, it does interest itself in some of the rather smaller problems of limited sections of the community. I am most anxious that the introduction of this Amendment should not be represented—and, I must say, it is capable of such representation—as being a further limitation or restriction on the position of the ordinary naval man, whether officer or rating. The bulk of our naval personnel, whether officer or rating, maintain their wives quite satisfactorily; and from the inquiries I have been able to make they would be the first to support such a Measure, which would ensure that justice was obtained for that small but unfortunate class of persons, namely, the wives or children of naval personnel who are deserted in these circumstances.
I am aware, of course, that there will be objections to this course. It may be objected that a deduction should not be made from the emoluments paid to personnel formerly serving in the Service, because that would mean that they were being treated on a basis different from that of the ordinary civilian. After all, when a person leaves the Service he is supposed to be entirely free, and there is a good prima facie case to be made out for saying that we should not effect any further deductions from any emoluments which the State pays him. Indeed, I believe it is one of the principles which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty will probably adduce tonight. Therefore, I should like to point out that it is subject to 'an important limitation, and that the Amendment is designed to give power only for the Government to make deductions if the person places himself beyond the range of British law; and, any such deductions that are made are, of course, subject to the ordinary safeguards in the Bill—safeguards which will be added, I trust, in the course of the evening by means of certain Amendments to be moved by the Parliamentary and Financial Secretary, possibly at the suggestion of certain hon. Members opposite and myself. That is the first objection, which I do not think is a valid one.
The second objection is that it would be impossible for the Admiralty to do

anything in this matter unilaterally. The Admiralty can, of course, point out, quite logically, that they are not the only Department affected by this particular type of provision. It might easily be said that there are Civil Service personnel not in the Admiralty who, after having performed their service in this country. and after having been in receipt of a Service pension, nevertheless go abroad, deserting their wives and leaving them chargeable to public funds, and there is no possibility of redress. Therefore, the Financial Secretary is quite entitled to say this evening: "Well, of course, it is not only the Admiralty who are involved. There may be numerous other Departments." It may be said in the course of the Debate that there are, as I understand, 21 Departments who may conceivably be involved by any precedent which is now set. But one has to commence establishing precedents somewhere. I had always understood that it was the proud tradition of the Navy that they were the initiators of reforms in this regard. It is a matter of which a great point is often made by the Minister of Defence, quite legitimately.
I am bound to point out that there are cases where the Admiralty have taken 'steps on their own account, without offering to consult, at any rate on the face of it, with the other Departments concerned. For example, there were the welfare committees on the lower deck, which seems to be an excellent reform, and which we have every reason to suppose was initiated by the Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty. Of course, on other matters they have been behind, as, for example, in granting free passages abroad; in that instance they were behind the other two Services. But here is a chance for them to initiate a reform. I should like to emphasise—I do not want to detain the Committee too long—that there are certain safeguards. In the first place, while a naval man is himself serving, the Bill provides adequate safeguards; and when he is out of the Service, demobilised and at home, he is, of course, subject to the normal processes of British law, when orders made against him for maintenance can be executed. Therefore, all the provisions of this Amendment do not apply, even while he is abroad. After he has been discharged he is able, as a British subject, to keep in touch with his Consulates—and there are British Consulates all over the place, for which this country


pays quite a large sum of money—and he should be able to make his own representations felt back to the Admiralty. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree with me that, if we should get a position where the State is required to pay to an ex-officer or an ex-rating a certain sum, and he is living outside the country, that it is a little incongruous that he should at the same time be compelled to provide for the maintenance of the deserted wife and legitimate or illegitimate child, without having any right of recovery from the emoluments paid to the person concerned.

Commander Noble: I should like to support this Amendment, but shall do so only very briefly, for I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Portsmouth (Major Bruce) has covered the ground pretty thoroughly. The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary said on the Second Reading that he would look into this point, and I hope he will tell us tonight that he is able to include it in the Bill. As the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Portsmouth has said, this is to be used in the exceptional cases of the officer or man who goes abroad, where he cannot be got at by an Order, leaving his wife and family destitute in this country. I myself, as I said on Second Reading, know of such a case, in which great suffering has been caused.

The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. John Dugdale): I am sorry, but I shall have to disappoint hon. Members. I shall do so for the following reasons. I did say, in my speech during Second Reading, that I would give the matter very careful consideration, because I realised that it was important, not, I agree, to many people, as the hon. and gallant Gentlemen have said, but to a few; that those people are of themselves important; and that we should do them justice. I said I would look into the matter and consider it, and I have done so; and I find several difficulties, which, I think, are insuperable and several very good reasons against making the change.
What are those reasons? First of all, the pensioner is in an entirely different position from the serving officer or the serving man. In the second place, his pension is only part of his income. It

may, in fact, be only a very small part. He may be getting a quite large income from some business in which he may be working; and his pension may amount, in many cases, only to £1 or £1 10s. out of a total income of £5, or £10, or more. We feel that, if there is to be any distraint on his income, it cannot be made by the Admiralty alone; that it would have to be made by the person or organisation from whom he is receiving the greater part of his pay. In other words, it would have to be made through the civil courts. I think that that, in itself, is a quite sufficient reason.
I will now give another reason. It would be very difficult, we feel, to limit such rules simply to this one class of person. Not only are there cases in which the pensioner is abroad and his wife at home. It may be that the reverse is the case, that the wife is abroad and the pensioner at home. In order to be fair, therefore, we should have to extend this particular Amendment even further than was suggested, and that would be difficult. My main objection. however, is that in the case of a rating and in the case of an officer who is serving, that man is sent abroad by the Admiralty; it is for that reason that we have introduced legislation with regard to those men. The pensioner, on the other hand, is not sent abroad by the Admiralty. The pensioner is therefore in a totally different category from the serving officer and the serving rating. I may add that the other Services did not take power to do this in the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill, and I am afraid that, much as I sympathise with individual cases of hardship, of which there may indeed be a number, I am unable for the reasons I have given—and they are not, I imagine, the reasons which the hon. Gentleman thought I would give—to agree to this Amendment.

10.30 p.m.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I must admit that I am absolutely horrified by the answer we have had from the Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty. When all the various excuses he has made are taken away, his reply simply means that the Admiralty is unwilling to assume that responsibility which any Department should take for people who are either on its active list, or to whom it is going to pay a sum in respect of services rendered.


The hon. Gentleman said, first that he thought it difficult, where civilian pay and Service pay might be involved, for him to be charged with the necessity of making this deduction from the naval pay alone. That seems a most astonishing statement. As I understood the somewhat flamboyant speech which the hon. Gentleman made during the Debate on the Navy Estimates, it was devoted to one thing, and one thing only; and it was that people who are in the Navy, or who have passed out of the Navy, are the responsibility of the Admiralty. And indeed with that I agree, for if any great Service Department is going to say that while people employed by them may be their charge, once those people have passed out of their service the Department have nothing to do with them, then I would say that such a Department or Service would fail to secure the confidence of this country. What the hon. Gentleman has said tonight is in effect "We may he able to make provision for the wives if they are deserted by their husbands so long as the people concerned are employed by the Admiralty; but if they are retired, we wash our hands of them." If the Financial Secretary is serious or sincere in any of those things he has said about the welfare of the Navy, then he has made a most atrocious statement tonight. He has deliberately said that when any person has retired, so far as the maintenance of his wife is concerned, the Department wash their hands of it. If that is consonant with anything he said in the Navy Estimates Debate, I am indeed amazed. He said there might be a question whether the wife was abroad, and the husband at home or the husband was abroad and the wife at home. What has that to do with it? Surely there is one simple principle, and one only—is the Admiralty going to try to look after a wife who is deserted, whether the husband is in its service, or in receipt of some sum because of the services he has rendered to the Admiralty.
That is the only question which the Financial Secretary has to answer. He has made no effort to answer it. He has produced a series of bogies in some effort to justify the situation. I say with great seriousness to him that all this Amendment is designed to do is what he himself suggested on the Second Reading of this Bill. He then stated that he was introducing a Measure which he hoped the

other Services would follow. He said he would try to do something to improve the lot of the ordinary person who served under the Admiralty. The one thing he can do on that is to guarantee, that whether a man is employed or is in receipt of a pension his dependants will be made secure in his or her future life. The hon. Gentleman would be the first—and the Chancellor of the Exchequer on occasions has not been backward in doing it—to point out how insecure a naval rating's life is. Here is a chance to do something concrete. I am, I must admit, astonished that on this practical question the hon. Gentleman has hidden himself behind a camouflage of excuses, excuses which cannot even bear questioning here, still less the examination of the country. I ask him to reconsider the matter. All the reasons he has given cannot stand up to examination by the Services on which we as a country depend for our existence. Therefore, I ask him to accept this Amendment, and to do something which will be more valuable than all these words he has given us so easily from the Despatch Box, to produce a better service in the Admiralty.

Major Bruce: I regard the explanation we have been given as in no way satisfactory. I invite the Committee to put themselves in the position of an unfortunate wife of approximately 45 to 46 years of age who suddenly finds herself at the conclusion of the war—her husband having been demobilised in another country and having elected to remain there—completely and utterly destitute. I invite the Committee to consider what steps she is able to take. The first thing that she does is get in touch with the Board of Admiralty to find out the address of her husband. That information the Admiralty do not appear to be able to give. The next thing she does is to ask the Admiralty's advice about what can be done. Then, of course, there is nothing that can be done except the initiation of litigation in the country in which the husband is resident. That is all very well for a wife who has an independent income of some few thousands a year, who can possibly go to the country concerned and initiate litigation to provide for her maintenance or that of her children as the case may be. But there are people in this country, and in my own constituency, and I am quite sure in the constituencies of my hon. Friends, who have not got the


money to do this. All we are telling them here tonight is that there is nothing we can do about it. At the same time we are paying out to the husband from the British Treasury sums either by way of retired pay or by way of pension. These sums we say are inviolate, and we can claim nothing against them for that amount which we require to pay by way of public assistant to his wife. I cannot regard this position as satisfactory. There is no suggestion from the Government Front Bench or from the Solicitor-General of what steps are open to the Minister to secure for ordinary British citizens this elementary redress. I submit that the Committee should consider this matter very seriously. Although the number of people affected is very limited, nevertheless they are entitled to the benefit of our deliberations and decisions here. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will think again about this.

Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary has listened to some very powerful arguments from both sides of the Committee. His answer has not satisfied either side. May I suggest to him that he should take the opportunity of considering these points which have been stressed strongly by this Committee beween now and the time when this Bill goes to another place and see if it is not possible to accept the Amendment and insert the necessary words in the Bill? I hope we can have satisfactory answer, and that the Financial Secretary will consider this at a later date.

Mr. Dugdale: I am afraid I cannot promise to do that. But I will tell the Committee that I have considered this matter most carefully, and I really cannot accept the Amendment, for the various reasons I have given. I may add that it has never been suggested, so far as I know, in the case of any other Services, or in any other Government Department, that this should be done, and quite frankly, for many reasons, it is impossible in spite of my great willingness, to consider the matter any further. I would also like to point out that this has nothing to do with welfare for the men, which I referred to in my speech during the Debate on the Estimates. It is a question of whether it is possible to effect a deduction in the case of a certain class of people in respect of their wives. It has nothing to

do with the main question of welfare for sailors, and, having considered the matter with very great care, I must say that there is no hope that an alteration will be made.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Dugdale: I beg to move, in page 1. line 21, at the end, to insert:
Provided that no deduction from pay shall be made under this subsection greater than will leave to the person from whose pay the deduction is made (subject, however, to the making of any other deduction authorised by or under any Act) not less than four-sevenths of his pay if he is an officer, and otherwise not less than one-third of his pay if he is not below the rank of petty officer, or, if a marine, the rank of sergeant, and otherwise not less than one quarter of his pay.
Here, I hope, I shall be able to satisfy the wishes of the Committee. During the Debate on the Second Reading of this Bill, I said I was going to see if it would be possible to place a check on the amount taken from officers and ratings. It will now be possible to place a limit such as I suggested, and there is a limit below which a man's income cannot go. He will be able to be assured that, although a certain proportion will he taken by way of allowances, a fixed amount will be left, and I would point out to the Committee that this will be in the Bill, and will not be operated by Order in Council. One of the difficulties experienced was that there had not been agreement between the three Services, but the Committee will remember that the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill has since been introduced. In that, there is a limit, and we propose the same limit for the Royal Navy. I hope that hon. Members will feel that we have been able, in this matter, to give satisfaction to their desires.

Commander Noble: I am very glad that the Financial Secretary has seen his way to put down this Amendment, because it covers the point of the Amendment on the Order Paper in the name of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for New Forest and Christchurch (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre), namely, in page 1, line 14, at the end, to insert:
but so that there shall be left (subject however to the making of any other deduction authorised by or under any other Act) to an officer not less than four-sevenths of his pay, and to a seaman or marine not less than one-fourth, or, if he is a petty officer, Royal Marine warrant officer, or non-commissioned officer not below the rank of petty officer or sergeant, respectively, not less than one-third, of his pay.


This is a concession for which we asked on Second Reading. It covers a most important point, and is of great importance. It was quite wrong, in our opinion that, in this Bill, an officer or rating should be committed to an unlimited liability. I hope that this will be a precedent, and that such important matters will be included in all Admiralty Bills in future, and not left to operation by Orders in Council.

10.45 p.m.

Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary, in the course of his speech, referred to the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill. I do not know if the hon. Gentleman was present during the recent Debate, or whether he read the report of the proceedings in HANSARD. He may remember that on that occasion I asked his colleague the Secretary of State for War whether the amount referred to in the corresponding provisions now inserted in the Army Act was to be gross or net. It will make a very substantial difference with Income lax at 9s. in the £. It is not clear that it is to be four-sevenths of the pay of an officer which is to be left in his pocket. It may be that after the deduction of Income Tax the actual amount left in the officer's pocket would be somewhere in the neighbourhood of two-sevenths of his pay only. I think we should have some statement from the Government of their intentions in this respect. It was a question which the Secretary of State for War was not able to answer. I hope, therefore, that after the lapse of a week, the Admiralty may have been able to make good this deficiency in their knowledge and that some explanation will be given to the Committee this evening.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: May I ask the Financial Secretary one question? He has covered the points of the Amendment on the Paper in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Chelsea (Commander Noble), except that of the Royal Marine warrant officer. He will he aware that the position of the Royal Marine warrant officer depends on whether he is serving under K.R. and A.I. or K.R. and A.R. Could he tell the Committee in which category the Royal Marine officer will come?

Mr. Dugdale: With regard to the point just raised, as the hon. and gallant Mem-

ber is aware, a warrant officer in the Marines ranks rather differently from a warrant officer in the Navy, he would come, therefore, on a lower scale than the warrant officer in the Navy. He would come under the rating scale, rather than under the officer scale.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Can I have an answer to my question?

Mr. Dugdale: The point raised was whether we knew the amount that would be left in the pocket of an officer. This is a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It would, therefore, have to be four-sevenths gross, and if it carried tax, that would have to come off; but in the case of a very large majority of ratings—I should think all ratings—and a very large number of officers, the tax, if any, would be exceedingly small.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Dugdale: I beg to move, in page 1, line 21, at the end, to insert:
(2) No deduction from pay shall be made under the last foregoing subsection in liquidation of a sum adjudged to be paid by an order or decree of any court unless such authority as may be specified by Order in Council under section three of the said Act of 1865 is satisfied that the person against whom the order or decree was made has had a reasonable opportunity of appearing himself, or has appeared by a duly authorised legal representative, to defend the case before the court by which the order or decree was made; and a certificate purporting to be a certificate of the commanding officer of the ship on which he was or is serving, or on the books of which he was or is borne, that the person has been prevented by the requirements of the service from attending at a hearing of any such case shall be evidence of the fact unless the contrary is proved.
I am glad to be able to say that I can keep the promise I gave on Second Reading. We are inserting here a provision that every man shall have the right to appear in court before any deduction is made, and we shall not make a deduction, if there has been a court order, unless in fact the man had the chance of appearing before the court when the matter was raised.

Commander Noble: We pointed out in the Second Reading Debate that Subsection (2) of Clause 1 re-enacted a Section of the Naval Discipline Act, but, in our opinion, it left out a most important


part. We are very glad that the Financial Secretary has seen fit to move his Amendment which gives officers and men a very necessary safeguard, and one which we would rather see in the Bill than left to an Order in Council.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Dugdale: I beg to move, in page 2, line 13, after "Ireland," to insert:
and an Act of Tynwald.
We are now including Acts of Tynwald with Acts of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland. The existing provisions in the Naval Discipline Act only refer to Acts of the United Kingdom, but the regulations extend to Northern Ireland and Tynwald. This provision will refer to courts in Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man, and Orders in Council to be framed under Clause I of the Bill. The Army and Air Force have taken similar action in the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: We were assured during the Second Reading Debate that this Measure was to bring the Navy into line with the Army and Air Force. It seems very odd that the Financial Secretary should have suddenly discovered the Isle of Man. No doubt there is very good reason for this, and no doubt this is the right point at which to bring it in, but what on earth has the Isle of Man and an Act of Tynwald to do with His Majesty's Navy? Can the Financial Secretary quote a single occasion in the past when Tynwald has had any application to the job he is now undertaking? Or is this another death-bed repentance? Is he trying to bring the Navy into line with what the other Services have done, after having said that he was setting the lead? Can he tell us what effect Tynwald has on the Admiralty, or the Admiralty on Tynwald?

Mr. McKie: Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for New Forest and Christchurch (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre), when speaking of the Isle of Man, overlooked the fact that some people from the small, but great, island—great from the point of view of history—have served in His Majesty's Forces. I wish to ask the Financial Secretary if there have been full consultations with the House of Keys and Court of Tynwald

about the incorporation of the Amendment in this Bill.
I am one who speaks for the rights of small nations and small minorities. It is important that the Manx people should have the fullest expression given to their point of view, and that in this House we should never, by anything we do, seek to override the decisions or legislative enactments of that ancient but small part of this Realm. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for New Forest and Christchurch made a point about the "deathbed repentance" of the Financial Secretary in seeking to induce this Committee to agree to this Amendment. He also asked, although I do not suppose that the Financial Secretary is in a position to give that information, about the position of other members of the Armed Forces from the Isle of Man. I hope he will be able to reassure the Committee that there has been full consultation on this point with the administrative body and Executive of the Isle of Man.

Mr. Dugdale: The hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie) has explained far better than I could have done, the importance of ensuring that even though the Isle of Man is a small country, people who happen to have orders enforced in those courts are just as much entitled to consideration as those who have orders enforced in courts of much bigger countries. Not only has there been consultation, but the House of Keys are anxious that this provision should be included in the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 2, line 19, leave out "and."

In line 20, after "section," insert:
(which relates to the service of process)—
(a) after the words 'any Act,' in each place where they occur, there shall be inserted the words '(including an Act of the Parliament of Northern Ireland and an Act of Tynwald),'
(b)".—[Mr. John Dicgdale.]

Mr. Dugdale: I beg to move, in page 2, line 25, at the end, to insert:
and in Subsection (4) of that Section (which provides that the Section shall not apply to officers) for the words 'This Section' there shall be substituted the words 'So much of the last foregoing Subsection as provides for the service of process on the commanding officer or by sending it to the Secretary to the


Admiralty, and for the leaving therewith of sufficient money to enable the defendant to attend the hearing and return therefrom.'
The present provisions of Section 98A of the Naval Discipline Act do not apply to officers. By Clause 1 of this Bill, the new provisions about deduction from pay in respect of the maintenance of wives and families will apply both to officers and ratings. It is, therefore, necessary that those provisions remaining in Section 98A should now be applied to officers. It has been thought advisable, however, that the service of process through the commanding officer or the Admiralty should not be applied to officers. This follows the provisions of the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill, which does not apply the special arrangements for the service of process to officers.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 2.—(Restriction on discontinuance on allotments of pay.)

Motion made, and Question proposed "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Commander Noble: In the Second Reading Debate, I quoted the case of a man who wanted to stop the allotment to his wife, but who had still to go on paying while inquiries were being made. The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary gave me an assurance that in the event of the man being found to be right, that is to say, that he was entitled to stop his allotment, he would have refunded to him the allotments that he had to go on paying while the inquiries were being made. I hope very much that the Financial Secretary will be able to give us that assurance again tonight. On the other hand, I think we should know where that is to be laid down, otherwise than in HANSARD. I do not think one can expect men to know of that assurance if it is only in HANSARD. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would tell us whether it will be placed in King's Regulations or the Appendix to the Navy List or wherever it may be.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. Dugdale: I am very glad to be able to give that assurance once again. I appreciate the point that has been raised. A very large number of sailors, unfortunately, do not read HANSARD. I will see that the information is sent out

to the Fleet by the best possible measures. Whether it will be by Admiralty general message or otherwise, remains to be seen. I will see that it gets the widest possible publicity, wider than it can get from perusal of HANSARD.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I am sorry to butt in on this friendly discussion across the Floor, but I was a little startled to hear what my hon. and gallant Friend said, and the reply of the Financial Secretary. This same point was raised during consideration of the Army Annual Bill. The question was raised by some of my hon. Friends on this side of the Committee, of what would happen in the event of compulsory deductions continuing to be made from the pay of an officer or soldier, when it transpired subsequently that the wife was not deserving of his support, and the deduction had, in fact, been made contrary to the justice of the case. It was suggested that in such a case refunds should be made. I think that is precisely the case which we are now discussing with regard to naval personnel. If indeed the position is that refunds are to be made in the case of the Navy, it seems to me that it will be necessary also that refunds should be made in the case of the Army. The Secretary of State for War put up very strong arguments, which were accepted, why refunds should not be made in such cases. The arguments he put forward entirely convinced me and all hon. Members who heard them. I was rather surprised that the Financial Secretary had not been similarly briefed on this occasion and that he did not put up a similar argument to resist the suggestion that has been put to him. It may be that the circumstances in this case are different. I am afraid that either I must get some explanation from the Government on how the circumstances differ as between the Navy and the Army, or I must ask the Government for an assurance that they will discuss this matter with the Army and the Air Force, in order to make certain that all three Services are brought strictly into line.

Mr. Dugdale: I have taken the precaution of consulting my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General, and he confirms my opinion that it is perfectly proper that this should be done. What the other Services do, it is not for me to say, but there is no reason in law why we should not allow this course. I am so advised,


not only by my advisers in, the Admiralty, but also by the Solicitor-General.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I would like to take the matter a little further. It is possible that stoppages might be continued in a case where, for instance, an order has been made as between the parties. I am not very conversant with divorce procedure. I think it is an order for alimony pendente lite. I hope the Solicitor-General will correct me if I am wrong in using that expression. In that case the Court will order the husband, pending divorce proceedings, to maintain his wife. It may be ultimately that the wife is found not to be worthy of support and the divorce goes through and no alimony is ultimately payable by the husband. Nevertheless, the husband has no claim to be repaid that alimony from any source whatsoever.
A question I would like to ask either the Financial Secretary or the Solicitor-General is this: In such circumstances, how can the general practice in the Divorce Court be reconciled with Clause 2 of this Bill? It seems to me that the Admiralty would be in the somewhat ridiculous position of having to make a refund of money, which does not tally with the practice of the Court, and either the officer or the sailor will get preference over all other classes of His Majesty's subjects or else some special provision will have to be made to deal with the money. May I have an answer?

Commander Noble: I think that in the case we are discussing tonight it is not a question of a compulsory stoppage from the pay but the man's own allotment to which we are referring.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: It is a compulsory stoppage.

Commander Noble: It is his allotment, which he cannot stop without the permission of his commanding officer, and it is not really compulsory maintenance stopped from his pay.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: It I cannot have any answer to my question, may I, at least, have the assurance that the Financial Secretary will draw the attention of his colleagues in the War Office and the Air Ministry to the question which has been raised during the Debate with a view to

ensuring that the three Services deal with this matter similarly?

Mr. Dugdale: Certainly I will bring this matter to the attention of my colleagues, though it is not for me to say what they they will do. However, I am perfectly willing to draw their attention to it. I think that the hon. Gentleman can rest satisfied that the course which we are taking is perfectly correct in law.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill, reported, with Amendments; as amended, considered.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

11.8 p.m.

Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: As I was unavoidably absent from the Second Reading Debate, perhaps I may be allowed to say a few words to the House now. I do not want to detain the House or to get between the Financial Secretary and the desire, which, knowing his nature, I am sure he feels, to propose a vote of thanks to the hon. and gallant Members behind me and also to the hon. and gallant Member for North Portsmouth (Major Bruce), for the help they have given in improving this Bill. The idea behind this Bill was a good one in that it brought help and security to the wives and families of officers and men in the Royal Navy, but how much has this Bill been improved by the Committee stage. Many of the Amendments showed how hastily the Bill had been drafted. If it had not been for the penetrating eyes of back benchers behind me and opposite, there would have been no provision for the right of a man to be present in court for the hearing of his own case or to be represented there by his legal representative. It seems incredible that the Bill should have left the Admiralty without that provision and that Section 98 of the Naval Discipline Act should have been withdrawn without including in this Bill a safeguard for this particular right of the man concerned. It should not have been left to hon. Members in all quarters of this House, except on the Government Front Bench,


to see that such an obvious omission was corrected. My hon. and gallant Friends behind me have succeeded also in obtaining an Amendment from the Financial Secretary which has transferred from some vague Order in Council of the future to this Bill itself the limits of the liability of a man in such a case as this Bill envisages. That is a very notable achievement, especially in view of the Government's infatuation for Orders in Council, but I was rather distressed that the Financial Secretary should have said that this follows on the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill. We like in this House to see the Navy in the vanguard of Whitehall, and not trailing along in the wake of the other Services.
In future I think the House is entitled to have an explanatory memorandum attached to complicated Bills of this kind. Not only would it be of immense help to hon. Members, but we are entitled to expect it as a matter of courtesy. I also share the hope expressed by the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Colonel Lipton) on the Second Reading that the day may come when those complicated and patchwork methods in all the three Services will be co-ordinated by the Minister of Defence. Apart from these few criticisms, we are all glad to have been able to take part in this Bill, and we wish it well. It is a useful Bill, and, I think, well worth bringing forward to this House, especially with the additions which have been made to it in the Committee stage.

11.12 p.m.

Major Bruce: I should like to give a final word of blessing to this Bill, as one who has had some opportunity, in conjunction with my colleagues and hon. Gentlemen opposite, of making a fairly devoted study of it. I was sorry that in the proceedings in Committee the Financial Secretary was not able to agree to a request that I made to include a further measure of protection for a limited class of persons. I thought he could have done it. I did not think his explanation at all satisfactory. I did not think that he went into an explanation of his rejection of our suggestions in any detail, and while thinking that this Bill is excellent in scope, and overflowing with very excellent functions in giving some measure of protection to the wives of naval officers and naval

ratings who are entitled to it. I think it could have been considerably improved by the introduction of my former suggestion. As is always the case in matters of this kind, the general improvements which one wants to put—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): I am sorry, but the hon. and gallant Member is not, of course, entitled to deal with what might or might not be in the Bill; he is only entitled to deal with the Bill as it appears before the House now.

Major Bruce: The Bill as it appears before the House, and subject to the reservations I have already made, is a very satisfactory one indeed, and I should like to thank the Financial Secretary for bringing it forward.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: The Financial Secretary on the Second Reading made two speeches. I would like to quote one small passage in each of the speeches he made. In opening, he said:
It is most important that we should work in step with them. I understand, though naturally I cannot speak for either of those other Departments, that corresponding legislation for the Army and the R.A.F. will be amended in certain respects in their Annual Bills. Therefore, that will bring the three Services into line.
He concluded by saying:
While I was considering this Bill, I sometimes thought that I wished I was introducing, let us say the Electricity Nationalisation Bill which seemed to me to be much more simple."—[OFFCIAL REPORT, 14th February, 1947; Vol. 433, c. 680–692.]
Well, if I may say so, if any Bill of a major nature had been introduced which suffered so much change during the Committee stage, the hon. Gentleman would have found himself out of a job. This Bill lays down certain principles. With those principles we on this side of the House are agreed, but it has been necessary during the different stages of this Bill to introduce so many Amendments that, as it now stands, the Bill which we are now discussing on the Third Reading bears little, if any, resemblance in detail to the Measure we discussed on Second Reading. We have been able to improve what was an obvious hotch-potch of legislation, something rushed through and introduced on the Floor of the House in an enormous hurry. We have made it


into something which will really do some good. How any Government could have come to this House—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have given the hon. and gallant Member a great deal of latitude. He is not dealing with the Bill as it now stands. He is dealing with the Bill as it came into the House originally. That is quite out of Order on Third Reading.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: With great respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I was trying to show what the Bill is now. If I may take it the reverse way, the Bill for instance now has the safeguard of Section 98A of the Naval Discipline Act, which it did not have when it was first introduced. How did it come about that the Bill was introduced without that safeguard?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. and gallant Member must abide by my Ruling, or I must ask him to resume his seat.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if I have gone beyond your Ruling. I would only say that the Bill, as it now stands, is something which we on this side of the House can welcome. It is something which we think will do some good, and we can only hope that the next time we get a naval Bill, it will not be necessary to make so many changes between the Second Reading and the Third Reading.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That so much of the Lords Message [1st April] as communicates the Resolution, 'That it is desirable that the Local Government (Scotland) Bill [Lords] be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament,' be considered forthwith."—[Mr. R. J. Taylor.]

11.17 p.m.

Mr. MeKie: I would like to submit that the House ought to be entitled to ask the Secretary of State for Scotland for an explanation of this rather unusual Motion which appears on the Order

Paper. As I understand it, the House is now asked that this Bill—the Local Government (Scotland) Bill—having gone through all its stages in another place, be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament before it is introduced for Second Reading in this Chamber. I want to ask the Secretary of State for Scotland—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): The hon. Member is out of Order. The meaning of the Motion before the House is to the effect that the Resolution be now considered. Obviously the hon. Gentleman cannot discuss it until the Motion that it be considered has been passed.

Question put, and agreed to

So much of Lords Message considered accordingly.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That this House doth concur with the Lords in the said Resolution."—[Mr. R. J. Taylor.]

Mr. McKie: I am very grateful to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for having corrected me and I apologise for having been premature in rising to catch your eye. May I now ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will be so good as to explain the appearance of this somewhat unusual Motion on the Order Paper? I have been in this House now for some 16 years, and I have been a very regular attender. I cannot, to the best of my recollection—though I may be wrong—remember ever seeing a similar Motion on the Order Paper. We are asked, if this Motion is agreed to, to allow a Bill which has been introduced in another place and passed through all stages there, to be referred to a Joint Select Committee of both Houses of Parliament before it has been considered in the House of Commons even on Second Reading. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be good enough to explain the reason for that.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am sorry, the hon. Member is quite out of Order. This is a Bill originating in another place, and this House does not know, and it is not competent for the right hon. Gentleman or the hon. Member to discuss, what is in the Bill, which has not so far come before this House. The only question is whether this House concurs with the Lords in referring the Bill to a Joint Committee.


That is the only question which can be discussed. It is almost formal.

Mr. McKie: May I ask, with great respect, whether it is usual to have a Motion such as this? I tried to obtain a copy of the Bill from the Vote Office tonight and I was told that it was impossible to get one.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It is quite clear, as I have indicated, that the Bill is not before the House. It is not, therefore, available, but it will be available at a later stage.

Mr. McKie: With respect, I think I am entitled to say this before I resume my seat. This Bill is highly controversial and I just want to ask the right hon. Gentleman for his reply.

Sir William Darling: I invite your guidance, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, on this matter. Suppose hon. Members do not agree with the Lords in the said Resolution. I have stayed here for the last hour because I believed this was a very important Bill on Scottish affairs, but the Secretary of State has not the support of Scottish Members on this side of the House.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: A Member's course of action is clear. He votes, if he so desires, in the negative against the Resolution.

Sir W. Darling: And speaks, I take it, Sir.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: With great respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I would like to ask for a little information, for, like my hon. Friend the Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling) I am rather a new boy in this place and I would like to know the actual situation. The Secretary of State for Scotland has been good enough to be here like myself for a long time, for it is a great Scottish occasion, and yet, when it comes on, apparently nothing can happen at all. Are we not to have some statement of the position?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Perhaps the House will forgive my saying to one who has described himself as a new boy that this is a preliminary stage. At a later stage, assuming that the Bill is approved by the Select Committee to which it is proposed to be referred, it will come

before the House in the normal course, and hon. Members will then have an opportunity of speaking on its merits. This Resolution is a preliminary stage.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Westwood): We are following old established constitutional procedure in connection with a Message coming from another place. When that Message has been agreed to—the Bill having been introduced in another place and having received a Second Reading—it will be possible to proceed further with a Bill which is not wholly a consolidating Bill. If it had been otherwise it would have gone through another procedure. I cannot enter into the merits of the Bill until such time as there is agreement between this House and another place.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Is the Secretary of State quite right in saying that it is a consolidating Bill? [Interruption.] I thought he said it was purely a consolidating Bill. The words in brackets, "1st April," do make things very much more difficult. I have nothing more to say.

Mr. McKie: On a point of Order. May I ask the Secretary of State to tell us the reason why it has been necessary for a Message from another place to ask us to allow this Bill to be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament?

Mr. Westwood: The reason is quite obvious. It is to enable us to proceed with the Bill. It is constitutional procedure.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I must tell the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie) that this is not a point of Order.

Mr. McKie: May I ask, with respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for an opportunity to differ, because—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I must remind the hon. Member that he has spoken more than once. His point of Order is, in fact, not a point of Order.

Question put, and agreed to.

Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

Orders of the Day — GAS (SPECIAL ORDERS)

Resolved:
That the Draft of the Special Order proposed to be made by the Minister of Fuel and Power under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920


to 1934, on the application of the Mold Gas and Water Company, which was presented on 12th March and published, be approved."—[Mr. Gaitskell.]

Orders of the Day — TIED COTTAGES (EVICTIONS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. R. J. Taylor.]

11.26 p.m.

Mr. George Wallace: I must apologise for the fact that officers of this House are detained at this late hour, but I wish to discuss this very important matter. It is an important matter, because certain developments may take place in my constituency in the morning which will very greatly affect the happiness of at least three families. I would like to say, straight away, that I realise I must be extremely careful in keeping within rules of Order on any remarks I may make concerning tied cottages. We have a saying in this country that an Englishman's home is his castle, but, in my opinion, the tied cottage is nothing more than a ball and chain hampering the individual. It is something which is a survival of serfdom. I cannot suggest that tied cottages should be abolished, because that would be out of Order, nor that they should be brought under the Rent Restriction Acts, because that, too, would be out of Order. But I can, from personal experience, talk of evictions under the tied cottage system. I am facing, in my constituency, a problem which is becoming increasingly difficult to cope with. I have co-operated 100 per cent. with the Dart-ford Rural District Council in this matter, and up to date we have, by requisitioning and by other means, managed to cope with all the problems which have arisen so far. But we are at our wits' end trying to find the wherewithal to rehouse these families. I have recently discussed the matter with the full Council, and I can report to this House that the Council passed the following resolution:
That the Dartford Rural District Council is of the opinion that no tenants be evicted from tied houses unless suitable alternative accommodation be provided, and that representations be made to the Member of Parliament for the Chislehurst Division to this effect.
I have received a copy of this resolution and I have passed it on, and I cannot make further reference to it tonight or I should be out of Order. It is to

the credit of the Council, and to the Ministry of Health, that all prefabricated houses are up and occupied, and the Council is following the principle of building houses by direct labour. But we cannot keep allowing people from tied cottages to go into these permanent houses at the expense of other people.
I realise fully the difficulties of hon. Members who are here at this late hour in getting home, but I must tell the House these facts. Tomorrow morning, three families in their cottages, living on one farm in my constituency, will appear before the county court in order that the normal operations shall follow. Of course, I cannot make any suggestion as to what should be done. That is beyond the powers of this House and myself, but what will happen to these people, I simply do not know, especially if the normal machinery of the law is brought into operation. The facts are that a farm was sold and three workers dismissed. They were then snapped up by another farmer but this farmer does not possess any cottages and, therefore, having lost their jobs, they are being replaced by new employees. That is an important point to bear in mind.
I am putting this bluntly to the House in view of the shortage of cottages that we are facing now: is it to be the institution for these people in 1947, when we are talking about the age of freedom for the individual, or what is to happen to them? In the course of facing up to this problem recently, I found that if a man was in work, strictly speaking he was not destitute, but my right hon. Friend, in answer to a Question, did clarify that situation, and they can go into an institution. But is it necessary that farm workers, in work, should have to go into an institution in 1947 when this country is crying out for additional labour on the land? That is a point which should arouse some interest on the part of every Member of this House and, particularly, outside the House, as well. I have another case pending where, I believe, a Polish general, or an officer of high rank, has bought a farm and a farm manager has lost his job. At least, he has been told to clear out. A large number of relatives are involved, but that man has left the industry and gone into a factory, and he is a man of great experience. He should not have gone into the factory. What will happen to the whole


lot when they are evicted, I do not know We, in this particular urban district, are at our wits' end but we manage to keep the families moving somehow or other.
I always try to stress the human side of this problem and perhaps the House would like to hear at least two cases out of the large number in which I have interested myself personally, and where we have managed to solve the problem. The first case is of a man who was unable to carry out his work satisfactorily for reasons of health. He is an invalid ex-Serviceman—mark that point—and because his health gave out working on the land he was evicted five days before Christmas along with his wife and seven children. [An HON. MEMBER: "Shame."] I cannot reveal how I came to be interested in this case but this man was moved from a sick bed, in an ambulance, and taken to a requisitioned property where we managed to get him in at short notice. In another case I have here, a man, for health reasons, was unable to carry out his work satisfactorily. We talk about the casualties of industry, in the mines, but there are other casualties in industry and this is a case of a casualty in a very important and vital industry today.
I will not weary the House because I know other Members want to speak and, in any case, the time is going. But I want to stress the fact that, like most hon. Members, I like to keep in personal contact with the people I represent, and I can tell the House that these cases today are arousing bitter feeling, because the farm worker of today has got an organisation. He is a different type of man from the farm worker of past and very seldom "touches his cap." He is not the humble, submissive individual that he was many years ago. He is a changed man, and these people are inclined to fight very strongly for their rights.
I have had many cases of this type but they never seem to get public attention in the newspapers. Not long ago I had a case which was published all over sections of the Press, the Kemsley Press included, of a woman living in a fruit pickers' hut with several children. The facts were well known, but the picture was just published as a sort of whip because of the alleged failure of the Government to deal with the housing situation. The true facts were not published in any paper. Decent hard working people who are

turned out as a matter of routine never get this attention, and it is time that they did, because we have to rally round this section of the workers as well as everyone else.
I know the limits of this Debate, and, therefore, I have given some considerable thought to the matter. Even now I do not know whether it will be in Order for me to suggest what I intend suggesting, but I do suggest that there should be an Order in Council tightening up the present position as far as the issuing of certificates of possession is concerned, or for creating additional tied cottages. I am informed by a farmer friend of mine, who feels as strongly on this issue as I do, that there have been 1000 tied cottages created in 12 months. How far that is true I cannot say, but I am inclined to think it is so and that we are increasing the problem instead of reducing it.
I suggest that we should try to see if an Order in Council cannot be brought in. Apart from that, I suggest—and here I think I am in Order—that stricter supervision by the Ministers of Health and Agriculture should be observed in the issue of these certificates. The Ministries of Agriculture and of Health should watch all cases which are reported to them—and they should be reported—of eviction and orders for possession, so that they know what is going on before it is too late. I agree that the final solution is the building of a large number of houses in the villages, but that cannot be accomplished in five minutes. We are suffering from the neglect of the past. I do not want to make an undue party point, but the facts are obvious, and cannot be denied. Immediate attention must be given to this problem. It is of long-standing and is not only affecting the freedom of the individual, but is acting against the interests of the whole nation. The agricultural workers are among the front line troops in this new Battle of Britain. I am sure, coming from Kent, that the people of Kent will take their part in the new Battle of Britain as they did in the other Battle of Britain.

11.39 p.m.

Mr. Gooch: I am sure the farm workers of the country will be very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. G. Wallace) for bringing this subject before the House. Thousands of men and women working


on the farms today have not the slightest security in their homes. They live under a fear which clouds their whole existence—the nightmare of eviction with no other place to which to go. During the last 25 years the Rent Restriction Acts have been enforced and have protected urban dwellers against the dangers of eviction in the absence of suitable alternative accommodation. I think it is a grave injustice and a scandal that farm workers, upon whom the country will to a large extent depend in the days that lie ahead, and who are more important than any other section of the community, are placed at a distinct disadvantage as compared with urban dwellers. Farm workers in tied cottages have no security under the Rent Restriction Acts as the law stands, even if they have nowhere to go, they can be evicted and their furniture placed in the highway and they can be fined for causing obstruction.
It is, of course, absurd that because a man is in one of the most vital of occupations, he should have less protection than the pawnbroker's assistant or the bookie's clerk. That is actually the position of the agricultural workers of today. Farmers and others believe in the retention of the tied cottage on the ground of necessity. They say that they must have tied cottages so that the workers can live near their jobs. Yet there are a good many cottages today which are not near farms. There are cottages situated in villages which, as my hon. Friend has said, have been bought over the heads of their occupiers, and although the people may have lived in those cottages for a quarter of a century, they wake up one morning to find that their cottages are tied and the farmer forthwith proceeds to secure a certificate from the agricultural committee, which he takes to court and these people are soon out of the cottages. My hon. Friend is quite right about the number of certificates that have been granted. In answer to a Question last year the Minister said that certificates for possession of cottages were being granted by agricultural committees at the rate of a thousand a year over the last five years. Thus, under wartime enactments, the tied cottage situation in the countryside has been aggravated to the extent of a thousand cottages a year for the past five years. I am convinced that tied cottages are not essential to the practice

of farming. There are many farmers who have no tied cottages, and the recent national survey has shown that these farms are in all countries and of all types. Sometimes farmers are frank about this business and confess that it is not necessary that cottages should be in the farmyard in order successfully to carry on farming operations.
This question of tied cottages has been a burning grievance with farm workers for generations, and abuses of the system have led to such misery that the party with which I am associated has come down time after time on the side of the farm worker in protest against the continuation of the tied cottage. I need not recall the numerous resolutions that have been passed at Labour Party conferences and T.U.Cs. condemning the tied-cottage system, and speaker after speaker has declared that when the Labour Party came to office with complete power they would seek an early opportunity of introducing legislation that would end this vicious system in the countryside. I suggest that there should not be any hesitation on the part of our hon. Friends on this side of the House in facing up to the serious position which obtains in the countryside. Here are men to whom we are looking, during the next few months especially, and on whom the country will to a large extent depend. They deserve well of the nation, and I hope it may be possible to secure protection for them in their cottage homes on a par with what the Agriculture Bill gives the tenant farmer.

11.44 p.m.

Mr. Janner: This is an extremely important matter. Many thousands of people are concerned, and it cannot be denied that there is considerable feeling throughout the length and breadth of the country on this point. It means that men and women are driven from the countryside instead of being attracted there, because they have not got security. It would be out of Order to suggest legislation to deal with this matter but there is a method of doing so within the purview of the various Acts that prevail. I would suggest that the Ministry should be in earnest about this and should adopt similar proceedings to those already adopted when the Ministry of Agriculture recommended to the agriculture executive committees that they should take precau-


tions against the giving, of certificates. That, of course, is possible within the Acts. I suggest that my hon. Friend might consult with the Ministry of Agriculture in regard to those certificates. Also I suggest that there is a way in which to deal with this matter of requisitioning. In the same way as it is possible to have a requisitioning order for dwelling houses which are not within the connotation of tied cottages, so there is a possibility of exercising those rights that are already within the powers of the Ministry and preventing the ejection of tenants who are in tied cottages, even though orders may be made against them. It is done in ordinary cases, and if it were generally made known that tenants would be protected in those cases where they would be ejected by order of the court, I think this evil might be met even without legislation.
I suggest to my hon. Friend that he should adopt these methods speedily. If we want people to remain in the countryside and do not want them to rush, or to be pushed, away from the country into urban areas, we must protect them from being dealt with in a manner that is different from what obtains in the towns. I hope the Ministry will take note of this and act accordingly

11.46 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. John Edwards): My hon. Friends have drawn attention to a very important and significant social problem. Their difficulties are perhaps not as great as my difficulty in keeping within the bounds of Order when trying to give some sort of reply, especially to the points where hon. Members almost went over the bounds of Order themselves. Let me say at the outset, so far as this side of the House is concerned, that we do not like any system under which the security of a man's home depends upon his employment. The system becomes to us particularly vexatious at a time when there is such a scarcity of houses and it leads to evictions and to suffering of the kind that my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. G. Wallace) described.
I think it will be agreed on all sides that the real remedy for the kind of case to which attention has been drawn is by the provision of an adequate supply of houses. An hon. Member interpolates, "Not solely". If there were enough houses, although the system might be

objectionable there would be no hardship of the kind to which my hon. Friend referred. I do not propose to elaborate this point. The Government are doing everything they can to build new houses. I am not sure whether I shall be out of Order now. There certainly will not be any time in this Session to deal with the problems arising out of the occupation of existing houses. These things, which involve rent restriction problems and so on, must be attacked comprehensively in due course. I cannot proceed very far along that course, which would involve a discussion of legislation.
There is one point which I should like to make clear. It is important for us to distinguish between the tied house in the sense of houses occupied not under a contract of tenancy—and, therefore, occupied by virtue of a contract of employment—and houses outside the Rent Restriction Acts, which are often referred to as tied houses and which are in a different category, being occupied by virtue of employment, but where an actual tenancy exists and rent is paid and where, therefore, the house is covered by the Rent Restriction Acts.
The point I want to make is that it is only the second category of houses to which the certificates refer. I have some figures which I will give the House for purpose of putting them on record, of the actual number of certificates which have been granted. During 1946, for the four quarters respectively, the number of certificates granted was 328, 335, 233 and 302, being approximately something less than half—

Mr. Janner: How many were refused?

Mr. Edwards: I am giving the figures now—something less than half the applications made for licences. The suggestion has been made that it would be possible for, presumably, the Minister of Agriculture—it is not my Department—to do something about the conditions under which these licences are granted. That is a point which I will refer to the Minister of Agriculture, but I would remind my hon. Friends that what happens here happens under Statute. If they look up the Statute, they will find that there is a certain difficulty in the matter. It is nothing to do with my Department, but I will pass it on.

Mr. Leslie Hale: May I put a concrete point? The courts have decided that the court which considers these applications cannot go behind the certificate of the war agricultural executive committee, cannot examine the merits, and cannot find out whether it was genuinely granted, genuinely considered or genuinely applied.

Mr. Edwards: I am sure that is so, but what my hon. Friend says is that we should refer to the 1933 Act where it is quite explicit. What the hon. Member says is perfectly true. All I said was that I doubted whether, under the law as it now stands, the Minister of Agriculture had any power to make any suggestion or give any guidance in that field. That is not my Department, but I will pass on the view which has been expressed.

Mr. Gooch: Was not the granting of certificates a wartime measure?

Mr. Edwards: The provision is in the 1933 Act. I cannot give the Section but, as I understand it, if a certificate is granted under the 1933 Act, the court has to accept it and there cannot be any argument about it. Within the limits of this Debate and considering all that would be involved if we were to tackle this problem comprehensively by way of legislation I can only say that the truth of the matter is that the only way open to us at the moment to deal with the problem is to press on with our provision of new housing and to ease the immense hardship which we all know exists, and which we all deplore. At any rate there is no difference between us about that.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Six Minutes to Twelve o'Clock.